the ability to build on that next year. the super hornets, for instance, that are made in st. louis missouri. we have been using those at pretty high volume with desert warfare. the desert is harder on our equipment than other places might be. the serious shortfall of fighter aircraft in the navy. all of those things are taken into consideration as this bill moves forward. it's a bill that recognizes the importance of readiness issues. we had more people die in training accidents last year by a substantial number than were killed in combat. that means we hadn't been providing the kind of training or the kind of equipment because we had budgets that didn't allow that. these budgets that we voted on in the last few months hopefully get us back to where we're going to close that readiness gap we're going to be able to say to

those who serve and their families that we are providing the best equipment the best training the adequate amount of time to fly a helicopter or fly an airplane and try to see what you would do in adverse conditions that frankly mr. president, we have just not been able to do. this takes into account actions to really address specific threats from countries that have actively worked to undermine our economic interests and our national security interests. according to the national defense strategy, china is using what they refer to as an all-of-nation long-term strategy. all of the resources of the nation of china, according to that blueprint, in a long-term strategy of leveraging military modernization, influencing operations predatory economic efforts to coerce neighboring

countries to reorder the structure of the indo-pacific region to their advantage. it is not to our advantage or the world's advantage for china to be able to restructure that part of the world to their advantage. it also classifies china as a strategic competitor that seeks to shape the world toward their authoritarian model through destabilizing activities that threaten the security of the united states and its allies. to counter china and reassure our allies and partners, this bill takes action to prohibit telecom companies with links to chinese communist party intelligence apparatus from doing business with the u.s. government. many of us on the intelligence committee think we could have gone a step further than that, but at least we're now prohibiting those organizations from being government contractors. we need to continue to be vigilant to be sure that their

presence in our other systems don't also jeopardize us. this bill, the national defense authorization act contains modernization language for the foreign investment in the united states effort to look at what national security issue may be at risk when a foreign company is able to buy the company or a technology of an american company. the national defense strategy in addition to china also says that russia seeks to shatter the north atlantic treaty organization and change european and middle east security and economic structures in its favor, also not in our advantage nor in the advantage of those in the world that will be affected by it. russia has violated key arms control treaties. it's expanded and modernized

it's nuclear arsenal sometimes outside agreements that have been made. it's tested counter space weapons. it's used emerging technologies. it's undermined our election process. it's infiltrated the way that we communicate with each other in social media. it has confronted elections of our nato allies and others. and i think this bill shows not only a firm commitment to nato, but a firm commitment to article 5, which means that any nato country when attacked will have the other nato countries come to its help and aid. additionally this bill authorizes that important resources and policies are there to counter north korea to counter iran, isis, al qaeda syria, and others that we should be concerned about as they oppress the people of their countries and try to expand

their oppressive governments to other places. this bill recognizes the critical importance of our allies and our partners around the globe so that we can be willing to stand together and to advance shared values and goals. the men and women that serve us in uniform the men and women that serve us in the intelligence agencies, the men and women the civilian employees that come every day to be part of that defense and intelligence structure work hard for america. this bill shows that we appreciate that work. the overwhelming vote today on this bill in the senate verifies that and the president's signature soon to follow will set a blueprint that allows us to do the number-one job of the federal government, to defend the united states of america. and with that, mr. president i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. a senator: i rise to talk about my opposition to judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. i want to focus on what his confirmation could mean for the future of voting rights in this country. ms. smith: the right to vote is our most sacred responsibility of citizens in this tkpraeut nation. middle class middle class called voting -- martin lure they -- luther king called it the foundation. if certain groups are barred or discouraged from voting, then our elected representatives cannot be held accountable for protecting the rights and interests of all of us. when you cast your vote, you decide who should be entrusted to protect all of your rights. your right to make private decisions about how and when to start a family, your right to advocate and organize for fair

pay and safe working conditions, your right to affordable health care your right to breathe clean air and drink clean water but if judge kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court there is no doubt that he would help his friends in far-right special interest groups continue their coordinated campaign to make it harder for millions of americans to vote. these are the very same groups who recommended his nomination to the president. these special interest groups have helped pass state laws designed to create obstacles at every step of the voting process, like making it more difficult to register to vote, to cast your vote, and to have your vote counted equally. and these groups know that they can count on judge kavanaugh to uphold these discriminatory laws. as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, judge kavanaugh has a record of supporting laws that perpetuate voting discrimination, particularly against communities

of color. in his -- in 2012, he wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel upholding south carolina's stringent voter i.d. law even though the department of justice had determined the law would violate the voting rights act of 1965. unfortunately discriminatory voting laws like the one judge kavanaugh upheld have a long and shameful history in this country. when this country was founded generally only property-owning white men had the right to vote. it took 80 years to expand the franchise to all male citizens regardless of their race or color. and it took another 50 years to grant women the right to vote, and another four years after that to grant that right to all native americans. but the expansion of the legal right to vote did not always translate into access at the polls. it took us over a century to pass the voting rights act of

1965 which outlawed discriminatory poll taxes literacy tests and other voter intimidation tactics. this landmark civil rights legislation finally put real teeth in the promise of the 15th amendment that no one should be denied the right to vote on account of their race or the color of their skin. unfortunately the supreme court gutted one of the most important protections in the voting rights act in 2013 in shelby county vs. holder. since then far-right special interests at the state level have doubled down on their efforts to make it harder for people to vote by limiting same-day and online voter registration. limiting early voting and -- enacting voter i.d. laws and purging infrequent voters from the registration polls. these latest efforts make it harder rather than easier for people to vote and they show us there is still so much more work to be done to fulfill the

promise of the 14th and 15th amendments that every citizen can vote. we deserve a justice committed to making our democracy more representative so that we remain a government for the people and not just some of the people. we need a supreme court justice who appreciates the history of this hard-won fundamental right and who will not reverse course on centuries of progress. judge kavanaugh's opinions show that he will uphold state laws that make it harder for communities of color and low-income people to make their voices heard. our voting laws reflect our beliefs about who should have a voice in this country. i am proud to represent minnesota, the state with the highest voter turnout in the nation. and i believe that our next supreme court justice should vigorously defend the right of every eligible citizen to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right the right to vote.

unfortunately judge kavanaugh's record demonstrates he will not be that justice. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination, and i urge the american people to make your voices heard. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president i rise today to discuss the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh as some of my colleagues have been doing today. president trump has chosen a superbly qualified nominee to the supreme court and believe me, i know what's good and know what isn't good. judge kavanaugh is one of the most widely respected judges in the country. he has authored 300 opinions during his 12 years on the bench in the d.c. circuit court of appeals, the second-highest court in the country. the supreme court has adopted his positions and his opinions a

dozen times. he's written notable dissents that have carried the day in the supreme court. he's authored articles in the harvard law review, the "yale law journal," and the georgetown law journal. he's also taught courses at harvard, yale, and georgetown. none other than elena kagan in fact hired him to teach at harvard. i'd like to take some time today to focus on a subject on which judge kavanaugh has really made his remark as a jurist. i want to talk about substance and i want to talk about what judge kavanaugh has written in his opinions and how he's been a true intellectual leader on the court. and i hope my colleagues on both sides listen to this because we haven't had a nominee like this in a long time. so much of the discussion about judge kavanaugh so far has been substance free. democrats have hurled accusation

after accusation divorced from reality. they say those who support judge kavanaugh are complicit and evil. they say his nomination threatens the destruction of the constitution. they say people will die if he is confirmed. lost in all of this is any actual discussion of judge kavanaugh's written opinions of the way he approaches cases. when judge kavanaugh met with me last month he said he hoped my colleagues would read his opinions. that's how they can learn what kind of a judge he is. that's how they can learn how he thinks. that's how they can learn why he's so respected by democrats and republicans alike who are on the circuit courts of appeal and other judgeships. regrettably my democratic colleagues have been too busy one upping each other's apocalyptic rhetoric to take a

look at what judge kavanaugh has actually written. so i'd like to take some time to do that today and i'd like to focus in particular on the subject on which judge kavanaugh has arguably had his greatest influence as a judge the separation of powers. the separation of powers is a core component of our constitution. it is in fact the first and most important way the constitution protects our liberty. as justice scalia was fond of saying quote the genius of the american constitutional system is the disbursal of power unquote. by separating authority among competing branches of government and then further dividing it between the federal government and the states, the constitution makes it extremely difficult indeed nearly impossible for any one individual or faction to consolidate enough power to truly threaten liberty. the side effect, of course, is

the degree of inefficiency because you must get so many people with so many divergent interests to agree in order to enact lasting changes. policy making can be a messy slow process. but that was the point. by creating multiple power centers, the founders ensured that no one person or group could exercise too much power. but sometimes we forget that the purpose of the separation of powers is to protect liberty. we get frustrated with the slow pace of legislation and so we want to give more power to the executive branch because the president can act more quickly than a large multimember body like congress. but we do not want to give the executive branch too much power because the president might not always be of our party or of our same party. and so we create these weird

hybrids called agencies that like congress create rules for people to follow. but that, like the president are able to act quickly when necessary. also like the president these agencies decide when and how to enforce the law. they decide when to bring suit or when to levy penalties for violations of agency rules. they exercise significant power over our lives and they don't fit neatly within the constitutional design because they partake of all three branches of government and of judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh sits on the u.s. court of appeals for the circuit -- circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia, often called the second-highest court in the land. the d.c. circuit enjoys this esteemed position because it hears many of the cases that

involve these agencies that i have just described. federal agencies have significant power over many aspects of our lives and the d.c. circuit has authority to review the actions of nearly every federal agency. important parties important court. judge kavanaugh central contribution to separation of powers jurisdiction or jurisprudence has been his commitment to upholding the structure of our constitutional design against misguided efforts to insulate agencies from political accountability. i described earlier how agencies are these weird hybrids. like congress, they make laws in the form of regulations. like the president they enforce those laws. and like the judiciary they adjudicate disputes that arise under those laws, the very same laws they wrote in the first

place. it is a recipe for abuse if not kept under control. that's why judge kavanaugh has been so careful to scrutinize agency design and agency decision making to ensure that officials have the necessary accountability. accountability is what keeps these agencies in check given that the traditional separation of powers, which is what keeps our three branches of government in check does not apply. in only his second term on the d.c. circuit judge kavanaugh authored a masterful dissent in the public company accounting oversight board. the public company accounting oversight board was created in 2002 in the sarbanes-oxley act. the board can regulate audits of

public companies and oversees the registration and inspection of audit firms. it also sets audit standards and brings enforcement actions against violators. it is, in short a very, very important agency. the problem with the board was that congress had chosen to completely insulate it from political accountability. board members were not chosen by the president, they are chosen by the securities and exchange commission which in turn is chosen by the president. and board members cannot be removed by the president. they can be removed only by the s.e.c. which in turn can be removed by the president. the rub was that congress had placed strike limits on the s.e.c.'s ability to remove board members an strict limits on the -- and strict limits on the president's ability to remove s.e.c. commissioners. the securities and exchange commission could remove a board member only for quote good

cause shown unquote. and the president could remove an s.e.c. commissioner only for inefficiency neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, unquote. so not only could the president not not remove a board member who was doing a bad job but he also could not remove an s.e.c. commissioner for -- for refusing to remove a board member who was doing a bad job unless he could somehow show that the s.e.c. commissioner's fill tiewr to remove the -- fail tiewr to remove the -- failure to remove the board member was a neglect of duty. judge kavanaugh said the president's power to remove is

critical to response his article 2 responsibilities. yet under this statute the president is two levels of removal limitations away from board members. this structure effective eliminates any presidential power to control the board notwithstanding that the board performs numerous regulatory and law enforcement functions at the core of executive power unquote. judge kavanaugh's logic was inescapable. the president cannot do his job if he cannot control his subordinates and he cannot control his subordinates if he cannot remove them from office. the structure of the public company accounting oversight board made it immune from presidential control and thus immune from political accountability. here you had an agency exercising executive power with no oversight from the chief

executive himself. this is contrary to the separation of powers which vests executive authority in the president precisely because the president is a politically accountable actor. as justice jackson memorably taught the power to enforce the law is among the most awesome powers granted to government. by cutting off the exercise of executive power from presidential oversight the board structure violated the constitution. although judge kavanaugh's position was the minority view among his d.c. circuit colleagues his position ultimately prevailed at the supreme court. it was a significant victory for a young judge and a sign of things to come. over the next decade judge kavanaugh continued to uphold the separation of powers in a

range of cases that called on him to interpret the scope of agency authority. he brought a discerning eye to these cases always careful to ensure that agencies did not act beyond the powers that congress had granted them. in loving versus internal revenue service for example he rejected an effort by the i.r.s. to stretch the word of a statute authorizing the i.r.s. to regulate the practice of, quote representatives of persons before the department of the treasury unquote to include the authority to regulate tax preparers. similarly in white stallion energy center v. e.p.a., judge kavanaugh concluded that the e.p.a. couldn't have seen the clean air act when it refused to consider costs in setting air quality regulations. this is yet another case in which judge kavanaugh's position ultimately prevailed at the

supreme court itself. of course, judge kavanaugh's search and review doesn't mean that agencies always lose. in american trucking association v. e.p.a., for instance, he upheld the e.p.a. decision to authorize a state emissions rule over a vigorous dissent because he concluded the agency had met the statutory requirements in rendering its decision. but the key is that judge kavanaugh reviews agency action carefully to ensure that it conforms to congress's commands. this is an essential aspect of the separation of powers. congress determines the limits of agency authority. congress sets the rules for when agencies may and may not act for what they may and may not do. that is the very essence of legislative power the power to

sets the rules that others must follow. when agencies transgress the bounds congress has laid down, they exercise power that no one has granted them, power that congress alone can give. judge kavanaugh returned to the theme of agency accountability and the separation of powers in another powerful dissent earlier this year. the case is p.h.h. corporation versus cfpv. at issue in the case is the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau or cfpb. the cfpb is an incredibly powerful agency. its jurisdiction includes banks credit unions, security firms pay day lenders mortgage servicers, and an array of other financial services companies. when congress created the cfpb

in the 2010 dodd-frank act it placed strict limits on the president's ability to remove the agency's head. specifically congress provided that the president may remove the cfpb director only for quote, inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance unquote. you may recall that language from my discussions of the free enterprise case. it's the same restriction congress placed on the president's ability to remove s.e.c. commissioners. but there's a significant difference between the s.e.c. and the cfpb. the s.e.c. is a multimember body. it cannot act without the agreement of a majority of commissioners. the cfpb, by contrast, is a unit tribody that has a single director. the only person the cfpb

director has to agree with is himself, coupled with the fact that the cfpb is an incredibly powerful agency whose funding isn't even directly controlled by congress, this raises serious separation of powers concerns. an agency head who can actually -- or can do virtually whatever he wants without fear of presidential reprimand and who can do it on his own without having to get the ascent of fellow commissioners is accountable to no one. the president cannot check him. his colleagues cannot check him. he is, in a very real sense a law unto himself. judge kavanaugh's consent -- dissent confronts this problem head-on from the very opening lines. quote, this is a case about executive power and individual liberty to prevent tyranny and

protect individual liberty. the framers of the constitution separated the powers of the new national government to further safeguard liberty the framers insisted upon accountability for the exercise of executive power. the framers launched full responsibility for the executive power in a president of the united states who is elected by and accountable to the people, unquote. judge kavanaugh then eloquently explains how the cfpb's structure and limits on presidential oversight violates these core principles. the director of the cfpb wields enormous power over american businesses, american consumers and the overall u.s. economy. the director alone may decide what rules to issue. the director alone may decide how to enforce when to enforce

and against whom to enforce the law. the director alone may decide whether an individual or entity has violated the law the director alone may decide what sanctions and penalties to impose on violators of the law because the cfpb is an independent agency headed by a single director and not by a multimember commissioner, the director of the cfpb possesses more unilateral authority that is authority to take action on one's own with no check than any single board member than any other agency in the u.s. government. unquote. and then judge kavanaugh drops the hammer, unquote. other than the president the director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other official in any of the three branches of the u.s. government. that combination, power that is

massive in scope concentrated in a single person and unaccountable to the president triggers the important constitutional question at issue in this case, unquote. judge kavanaugh eloquently explains how the cfpb structure coupled with the agency's lack of accountability poses a threat to liberty. the cfpb wields enormous power and yet is accountable to no one, not the president not the congress not the american people. the central purpose of the separation of powers is to prevent any one individual or group from wielding too much power. it does this by disbursing authority and by playing the branches off against each other. but the cfpb's structure does not disburse power it

consolidates power and it does so in a single individual who has no superior. this is a textbook violation of the separation of powers and one that i fully expect the supreme court to correct if and when it hears this particular case. mr. president i've spoken at length today about judge kavanaugh's writing and jurisprudence. i focused on actual cases that he's decided. and on his important contributions to constitutional law. in short i've done what judge kavanaugh asked me to do. i have reviewed his opinions and considered his analysis. i've done what all my colleagues should be doing. we should be reading what judge kavanaugh has actually written. we should be looking at his judicial philosophy and how he decides cases. judge kavanaugh is an outstanding choice for the supreme court. his opinions are cogent.

his writing eloquent, and his reasoning ironclad. he understands that the purpose of the constitution is to preserve liberty and that the constitution does so both through the substantive guarantees in the bill of rights and reconstruction amendments and through the structural protections in articles 1 2 and 3 of the constitution. congress may from time to time experiment with new ways of delegating authority or structuring agencies, but it cannot do so in ways that violate our constitution's separation of powers. individuals who exercise executive power must be accountable to the president. agency officials cannot be fully insulated from presidential oversight. a person who has power to regulate broad swaths of our nation's economy must have some

checks on his or her authority. this is a requirement of our system of government. it is a requirement of our constitution. and it is essential to the preservation of liberty. judge kavanaugh understands this. he understands the constitution. he understands the proper role of a judge. he is one of the most brilliant and most distinguished legal thinkers in our country today. i am proud to support his nomination to the united states supreme court and i urge all of my colleagues to support him as well. we've got to get away from the politics of the supreme court. and when we have somebody who has the qualities the ability the reputation and the historiesty of doing what's right on the bench we should

give that person an opportunity to serve. judge kavanaugh deserves an opportunity to serve. he's more than adequately proven that he deserves it. we're going to be lucky to have him on the united states supreme court. and i'm not sure that he's always going to rule the way i want him to rule either but nobody is. and from time to time we may be disappointed. but the fact of the matter is, i know one thing he's going to apply the best of legal knowledge to the opinions that he writes, and he will be a force on the court who will get along with the other justices by showing mutual respect for them and receiving mutual respect back from them. he's the type of a guy who really will make a tremendous difference for our country. he deserves this appointment. we need to sustain him and

support him. and we need to get the politics out of this. we're lucky that he's willing to serve. and i believe most everybody in this body will henceforth once he's confirmed come to the conclusion we're really lucky to have him as a justice on the united states supreme court. mr. president i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i start by thanking senator hatch. he and i are cochairs of the pension committee and have a commitment, had a good meeting in his office last week. we had a good discussion and hearing on our joint committee where we have four republicans and four democrats from each house solving this what looks to some like an intractable pension problem. but if you're one of 60,000 ohio teamsters, mine workers rye ron workers, carpenter bakers and others it's your life because

you put what this town doesn't always understand on collective bargaining issue. you give up money today at the bargaining table so you'll have a pension later in life. you'll have economic security in part because of wall street shenanigans and other things, that these pensions are in jeopardy. they could face 40% 50% 60% pension cuts. we also know that a whole lot of businesses at least 210 in my state alone could face layoffs or worse. bankruptcy. many of them family-owned transportation and manufacturing and construction companies could face very, very dire economic times if congress doesn't fix that let alone what's going to happen to pension benefit guarantee corporation. one other comment. i thank senator hatch for that. i don't -- i'm a little curious when i hear him and others talk about the consumer financial protection bureau as if it's this awful out -off control federal -- out-of-control

agency. what bothers me, it's the only agency in government that stands up against the huge -- against wall street interests. we see the officer comptroller of the currency, we know how close he is to wall street. we see the fdic and the federal reserve and we see these nominees that come out of a white house that looks like it's a retreat for wall street executives and they're on one side protecting wall street and doing wall street's bidding. we have one agency, just one agency that my conservative pro-wall street, pro-corporate colleagues complain about every day, every week, every month an agency that saved 29 million american consumers $12 billion. how do you think -- they want to reign in -- rein in that agency. it has too much power. it's actually protecting -- my friend from massachusetts also in the hall talks about being a

cop on the beat. they're protecting consumers while wall street is -- is -- doing whatever wall street does to them. i'll just leave it at that, mr. president. mr. president i ask that the next group of remarks be in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president a free independent press is vital to our democracy. it's enshrined in our constitution. we need tenacious dedicated journalists, journalists who will inflict the comfortable and comfort the inflicted to challenge special interests to connect americans with their communities. that's why i join my colleagues this week on a resolution condemning this administration's awful, vicious demagogic attacks on reporters. the decision last week to bar a reporter from attending a white house event just because the white house didn't like the questions she asked to the repeated labeling of the free press as enemies of the people. watch the video last night, mr. president. watch the video in florida last

night where the president egged on egged on, egged on his supporters to start screaming at -- it is supporters -- to start screaming at newspaper reporters and other reporters, wheel who are doing their jobs -- people who are doing their jobs. reporters, despite this president using stolennous language -- i'm reading a book right now written by a stolennous translator. this book talks about a lot of the language he used. he called people enemies of the people. that's communist talk. yet this president calls reporters who get up every day and do their jobs, most of them not paid very well, frankly calls them enemies of the people. they do vital work not just in washington but throughout the country. i'd like to take a moment to highlight one of them. i'm going to go to this floor every so often in the weeks and months ahead and i'm going to talk about a local reporter, a reporter who gets up ever day probably doesn't make, mr.

president, more than $20,000 $30,000 a year, in many cases a little more than that but reporters are generally particularly not well paid people. and these important work that local ohio journalists that do, i want to talk about them. some i have met. others i have not met but i've observed because i know how important they are to communities. i'll start doing this on a regular basis because in this town today and with this administration, with the president of the united states -- i still can't believe a president of the united states engages in talk like the soviet stolen calling american citizens who get up every day and do their job to the best of their ability, that he calls them enemies of the people and tries to get the crowds he speaks to the people he addresses to chime in and call them enemies of the people and start calling these reporters names. but i want to talk about -- i want this floor message that i'm going to do from time to time to be a constant reminder of how reporters contribute to their communities. last week the daily jeff

seasonnian ran a story -- jeffersonian in eastern ohio ran a story on the upcoming firemen's festival reported by a local reporter named austin erickson. it's the local fire department's biggest fund-raiser of the year. they rely on the proceeds in part because of the corruption in state government where state government doesn't fund local communities like it used to for a whole bunch of reasons. but they rely -- this fire department relies on the proceeds of the firmen's festival -- firemen's festival to fund daily maintenance and testing of their fire gear. when talking to the chairman, he told the reporter if it's in those four walls it's from that festival. in other words, if it weren't for the festival, they wouldn't have the fire equipment they need. through its work, the daily jeffersonian and local reporters like mr. erickson are informing their communities about ways to

support local fire responders who keep them safe. mr. president, in a nutshell, if mr. erickson and the daily jeffersonian in cambridge ohio, were not writing these stories not reporting on the firemen's festival, not as many people would go, not as many people would understand they spend their hard earned money there it helps their local community helps their fire department. enemies of the people? if the president would listen and see what these reporters do every day maybe he'd stop the demagoguery. maybe he would stop calling people names. maybe he would stop calling his own attorney general names. maybe he'd stand up to putin who clearly -- that's another story. i won't get into that. let's go back to the local reporters. it's what journalists do every day, what mr. erickson does, what newspapers all over ohio. from my hometown paper the mansfield news journal the paper where my wife used to work the columbus dispatch, cincinnati inquire smaller paper, the lorraine journal. i could go on and on and on.

paper after paper after paper. journalists wake up every day. they do their jobs. they serve their communities. they serve their country. they're not enmies of the people. i -- enemies of the people. i would just pray to god the president of the united states would stop that kind of talk, mr. president. mr. president i'd like to ask for a different place in the record for the following comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: today we come -- we came together to pass important bipartisan legislation to strengthen our national security and invest in american jobs. many of my colleagues of both parties have helped get the national defense authorization act over the finish line. i particularly want to thank colleague senator portman from my state who worked with our office to secure important ohio priorities and senators inhofe, my friend jack reed who serves so well on the banking committee in addition to the work he's done in unemployment insurance and on military issues, and senator crapo my colleague from idaho as we worked on securing

-- fortifying our national interests when it comes to foreign investments. all of whom worked on the conference committee to get our agencies new tools to screen chinese and other foreign investments for national security threats. this bill, though, would not have been possible without the leadership of one senator in particular. that is the senator -- senior senator from arizona. senator mccain's leadership on this legislation throughout his career is why this congress honored him through the naming of this bill, the john mccain national defense authorization act. that's a rare honor. congress rarely honors its own. we all know -- we all have feet of clay and don't put our friends here up on a pedestal but for a few lions of the senate sam nunn, john warren, carl evan, now john mccain, we've don that. it honors his commitment to our national security through the john mccain strategic defense fellows program. fitting tributes to a man like john mccain, service and sacrifice. we know his story how a young

navy pilot captured behind lines -- enemy lines never wavered in his commitment to his fellow p.o.w.'s in vietnam. i've had my disagreements with him. we all have but we've always respected each other. he's been a leader that many of us perhaps all of us, almost all of us from both parties have relied on for guidance. on national security issues and on issues that my first year in the senate i worked with senator mccain on keeping down the cost of prescription drugs. he's been a critical partner in the fight for sanctions told our -- held other adversaries accountable. we worked with senators crapo and schumer and graham and corker and cardin to pass tough new sanctions on russia, iran and north korea. he's always been clear that we don't only honor the rule of law or refrain from torture when it's easy or convenient. he authored his 2015 amendment to prohibit the use of torture as an interrogation method. he's been forceful in defending our allies against russian

aggression in crimea and georgia and montenegro and after the helsinki summit, senator mccain one of the few republicans in this body that is willing to call the president out when he does something especially on foreign soil to attack the united states of america, he spoke out forcefully against the president cozying up to putin and his attacks on journalists. he said, the president of the united states -- do not he said the president made a conscious choice to defend the putin to spew propaganda and lies to the world. all that makes -- all that makes us who are we a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. those words stood out because so few republicans were willing to utter them. throughout his life and career, he lived the motto of country first. i thank my colleague from arizona for his work on the national defense authorization

act this year. i look forward to continuing our work together to protect our national security and to together serve the people of this great country. thank you mr. president. ms. warren: mr. president? er if officer the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, every day i meet all sorts of people -- small business owners, working moms, students seniors service members, and they're concerned about all sorts of things -- the growing cost of health care, the confirm of child the cost of college, the cost of student loan debt, stagnant wages fixing our broken criminal justice system, school violence in schools you name it. but in the thousands of conversations i've had i haven't met a single person who has said they're concerned that washington doesn't work well enough for big businesses. because if you ask any of them,

they'll tell you that when it comes to the wealthy and the powerful washington works just like a dream. but for everyone else, washington just isn't working. it's not a coincidence. powerful interests have been working for years to capture every single branch of government to tilt the scales in their favor and against everyone else. our courts are no exception in this. powerful interests have worked for years pouring incredible amounts of money into capturing our courts. it's been a real one-two punch. first punch working with republicans to stop fair-minded impartial judges from sitting on the federal bench. slowing down or stopping those nominations, holding a supreme court seat, keeping fair people off the bench whenever possible. and then came the second punch -- whenever they get the chance, it's stacking our courts with judges dedicated to a vision of

the law where the wealthy and the well-connected get to call the shots where people who are willing to leave behind women workers, people of color lgbtq individuals, students, families, and everyone else who doesn't have money or power. donald trump's decision to nominate brett kavanaugh to the supreme court is just the latest example of this. minutes after donald trump announced kavanaugh's nomination the white house blasted out a document-to--- to whom? to business lobbyists around washington touting judge kavanaugh's rulings in favor of corporate interests and against the interests of everyone else. man, they are not even hiding it anymore. think about that. first move by the white house is not a memo to the american people talking about the nominee's independence or talking about his commitment to

justice for everyone, but a memo to the business lobbyists highlighting judge kavanaugh's loyalty to big business. that's a key part of donald trump's public case for judge kavanaugh -- the promise that judge kavanaugh will tilt the playing field even further in favor of corporations and against working people. take a look at the cases the white house included in its sales pitch to corporate lobbyists. in one recent case, judge kavanaugh ruled that the consumer protection bureau was unsteel calling independent agencies like the consumer bureau quote a significant threat to individual liberty. really? that's the consumer agency that a bipartisan group of 60 senators and 237 representatives created after the most

devastating financial crisis in generations. the agency that is a tough watchdog for american families. the agency that in just seven years has returned $12 billion directly to people who were cheated by big banks credit card companies and student loan servicers. but i guess all judge kavanaugh saw was the threat to individual liberty of companies that were looking to cheat people. judge kavanaugh's ruling was so out of the mainstream that the rest of his colleagues on the court promptly reversed his decision by an overwhelming vote. but if judge kavanaugh becomes justice kavanaugh, he could provide the decisive vote on the supreme court to strike down the cystic c.f. -- cfpb and leave people at

the mercy of financial predators again. that wasn't the only time he ruled against consumers and in favor of the giant corporations that squash them. last year he issued an opinion that would have set aside a lower court ruling and allowed a merger of two giant health insurance companies to move forward, despite evidence that the merger could hurt consumers in 14 states. now, luckily once again judge kavanaugh's colleagues disagreed and they criticized him for quote, applying the law as he wished it were, not as it currently is. again, judge kavanaugh found a way to rule in favor of corporate interests no matter what the law said. judge kavanaugh has also ruled time and again to reverse rules designed to address climate change to protect the air we breathe. in three separate cases the

trump administration highlighted for corporate lobbyists judge kavanaugh argued that the environmental protection agency had acted illegally in taking action to protect the environment and to protect public health. in each case, the e.p.a. had spent years carefully considering the input of scientists experts and the industry. but in each case, judge kavanaugh found that wasn't enough and he put maximizing polluter profits ahead of protecting working families and the well-being of our planet. the trump white house and the republican congress have gone to bat for corporate interests time and time again. they've showered them with $1.5 trillion in tax giveaways rolling back the rules on some of the country's biggest banks and reversing rules to protect workers and consumers from corporate abuse.

but there may not be a single body in washington that has delivered more victories for giant companies in the last two years and more losses for everyone else than the supreme court of the united states. in case after case by 5-4 decisions, this court has limited the rights of working people and expanded the ability of giant corporations to do pretty much whatever they please. it is no wonder that working families are working longer and harder only to get squeezed between flat wages and rising costs. judge kavanaugh would tip the balance of the court even further in favor of those corporations and special interests. for the next 30 or 40 years, he would be a reliable vote in favor of whatever giant companies and their armies of lobbyists decide that they want. whatever special favors they

can't secure in congress, and can get only through the courts. the world's largest companies already throw their money around this place with reckless abandon and try to buy the outcomes that they want. they don't need anymore help on the supreme court. it is time for washington to start working for the people again, and that starts with defeating judge kavanaugh's nomination. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i come back again -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. tillis: i ask the -- unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. tillis:i come back again for the part of several weeks and for every week that i have to to draw attention to what i think is a great injustice and it's about this man andrew brunson. pastor brunson has been in prison in turkey since october of 2016. he's actually lived in turkey for more than 20 years. he's a presbyterian minister that's associated with the same church as reverend billy graham in western north carolina. he's been in turkey doing missionary work and really connected with the turkish people and he's not forcing the word on anybody. he's simply sharing it with those who want to hear it. he has a small church in izmir that only seats about 100 people and that started long after he started his mission.

and he was living peacefully with his wife noreen until october of 2016. that was shortly after the coup attempt, an illegal coup attempt where anybody who was should be in prison, if not the appropriate way to change a receipt regime and the united states or any other western nation . but after the coup attempt , the president, president of turkey, decided to implement emergency powers which gives him the power to basically put anyone in prison . and in fact, he put tens of thousands of people in prison before the military, people in the press , missionaries, nasa scientists, a number of people that i believe are illegally imprisoned just like pastor bronson. this was brought to my

attention a year and a half ago. we treated it like casework and we were doing everything we could get this north

and really no access to any outdoors. none of the standards that you would have in our prisons for the worst of the worst. he had been incarcerated, very limited contact. his wife remained in turkey because she was afraid if she left they wouldn't let him back. and his kids haven't seen him for two years because they were afraid if they went to turkey, the turkish government wouldn't let them leave. well through a lot of efforts through president trump, vice president pence ambassador brownback, senator shaheen from new hampshire and a number of other members, as a matter of fact 72 members of this body signed on to a letter that we sent to turkey to express our concerns. we were at least able to get him into house arrest. so now last week he was released back in izmir but limited to staying in the apartment that he shares with his wife noreen. that's a great step forward.

but it's still an injustice. it's a better setting but the fact of the matter is he's still incarcerated. and he's incarcerated on some of the most absurd charges that i firmly believe that there's no first year law student that couldn't derive a legal basis for saying that this person would not stay overnight in a u.s. jail. and yet he's been incarcerated for 663 days. we're working very closely with the administration to try and take this positive step, his placement under house arrest, and get him out of the country. but i made a promise to andrew brunson. i visited him twice earlier this year once in prison to let him know that he had people in congress who cared about him and we're going to share his story and make sure we didn't forget until he was released. and then about a month later a little over, i went back and i spent 12 hours in a turkish

courtroom hearing the absurd charges levied against him. and i'm not going to get into the details now but i'll tell you that indictment read like a fantasy. and it's one that makes me so frustrated to think this man could be kept in prison for 663 days. but now i want to end my comments on a slightly more positive note. i want to thank the officials in turkey who at least took the positive step to put him under house arrest. i spoke with him on friday, friday afternoon and it was a very very different experience. actually it was thursday afternoon. it was a very, very different experience. he had hope. he was able to spend time with his wife. and i was thrilled to see that because, frankly after my time with him in the prison back earlier this year, i was worried about him. he's lost 50 pounds. he was under great stress. as anybody would be, if you're

in a u.s. prison let alone a turkish prison. so i want to thank the turkish government for taking positive steps. it's one step in a journey that needs to get pastor brunson home. also i want turkey to realize we know they are a nato ally, and we know that when you join nato, we have an article 5 commitment. what article 5 means is that if any aggressor attacks you on your soil, then the members of nato are committed to sending their sons and daughters to defend your freedom. so we're in agreement with turkey right now that if they were to be attacked by an aggressor, we absolutely would answer the call and go to turkey to protect their homeland, protect their people. all i'm asking turkey to do is in the spirit of that agreement that we've had with turkey since 1952 to protect andrew brunson

to send andrew brunson home, to get back and honor the tenets of the nato alliance, the agreement that we have with the family of nations in nato. and it starts first by respecting the individual liberties that each and every citizen in turkey should have and each and every citizen in the united states enjoys. but, mr. president i hope this is the last week you have to hear my speech. i hope that next week the speech is thanking turkey for sending pastor brunson home. but make no mistake about it, for as long as andrew brunson is in prison and as long as other people like a nasa scientist like a d.e.a. officer like some of the turkish embassy staff who are turkish citizens, as long as they're in prison, we'll continue to be a voice for people in turkey who i think are illegally imprisoned. but, mr. president, thank you for the opportunity to speak on

this today. and to the american people, i hope when you say your prayers tonight, say one for pastor brunson. a senator: mr. president. mr. tillis: mr. president, i have nine requests for committee meetings or for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these requests have the approval the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent that requests be printed at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: let me join my colleague from north carolina in his request for humanitarian care and treatment release of pastor brunson. it's something we share on a bipartisan basis. i thank him for calling that to the attention of the senate and to those who are following our proceedings. mr. president, we know that president trump during the course of his campaign made immigration a major issue almost from the beginning he made it clear that he would take a different approach to immigration than previous

presidents of either political party. we can remember when he referred to those coming to the united states from mexico as murderers and rapists. we can remember when he called for the construction of a 2,000-mile wall between the united states and mexico and quickly added and mexico will pail for it. we can remember -- pay for it. we can remember all the statements made during the course of the campaign about immigration and terrorism. so we knew that we were in for a change of policy with this administration. but some of the things which have occurred have been stunning, some of them have been horrible. one of those things was a hearing, the subject of a hearing this week in the senate judiciary committee which i serve on. it was over the zero tolerance policy. some may remember that last year president trump decided to eliminate and abolish the daca program. that was a program for those young people brought to the united states as children, infants, toddlers and children who grew up in the united states

and believed they were part of this country and its future. they learned probably about the time they became teenagers that that wasn't true. they didn't have legal status. they weren't documented in the united states. they lived their whole lives here gone through our schools and some of them have been amazing students. they planned to go on with their education and their lives and learn that they had an obstacle in their path. well, president obama created an opportunity for them to continue to live in the united states without fear of deportation and to be able to work here. 790,000 of them stepped up, paid a $500 filing fee went through a criminal background check and were given on a temporary renewable basis this protection under president obama's executive order. president trump eliminated that order, and in doing so eliminated the protection that they had to stay here. their fate and their future were in doubt because of the president's unilateral action. he challenged congress, pass a law to save them.

well we tried. and at the last minute a bipartisan bill agreed to here in the senate by a majority of the members was rejected by president trump. it also included massive construction of his wall, but he rejected it nevertheless. and so today the only thing protecting those young people, the 790,000 are court orders which could change any day or any week. but the president's effort on immigration and children didn't end with his elimination of the daca program. just a few months ago they announced something called zero tolerance. here's how it would work. at our border, any person who presented themselves and wasn't a legal resident of the united states could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor a criminal misdemeanor of trying to come into this country without legal documentation. now people can come in without legal documentation and claim asylum and refugee status. but no distinctions were made.

if a person presented themselves and didn't have legal status, they faced this misdemeanor criminal charge. what flowed from that has created a humanitarian disaster. because of that charge, the trump administration then ordered the agencies to forcibly remove all the children who were with their parents who came to the border. that meant almost 3,000 children were forcibly removed from their parents at the border under the zero tolerance policy. well, that was the law of the land for some period of time, or at least was the president's order for some period of time until must be reaction from both republicans and democrats was so strong that on june 20, president trump did something very rare in his administration. he almost admitted he made a mistake. he decided to eliminate the zero tolerance policy. well the elimination of that policy did not solve the problem for 2,700 children who were in

the custody of the united states government. these are children under the age of 18 who were basically spread across the united states, being held by government agencies and government contractor facilities. so the case went before a judge in the southern district of california judge sabra as to what to do with these children. and a number of organizations like the aclu came forward and said these children should be reunited with their parents. our government separated them. they should be reunited. and he set a timetable and schedule for that to occur. well, a lot was done, but not nearly enough. and we had a hearing this week in the senate judiciary committee which went on for several hours with representatives from six different agencies of the trump administration trying to explain how we created this policy and what we've done ever since to reunify these parents with their children. all of us know that it's not healthy to take kids away from

their parents. the pediatric physicians of america, the american academy of pediatric physicians came forward and called it institutional child abuse. if that sounds like an exaggeration imagine if it were your child who was taken away, being taken away by our government our your grandchild, for that matter. i know how i would feel as a parent and a grandparent and i'm sure most people realize it would be a traumatic experience for any parent or grandparent for that matter to go through. and then from the side of the children we know that that kind of separation can cause real psychological problems for these kids. they don't know what happened to them. i met some of these kids. they were five and six years old in chicago. they had been transported 2,000 miles from the border to chicago, being held by our government in a contractual facility, five and six years old. these little kids couldn't figure out what had happened to them in their lives. i'll never forget being in a

room with ten of them and watched two little girls who walked into a room and hanging on to each other for dear lives. i thought they were sisters. one of them said, no, amigas, they latched on to one another because they were so uncertain about their future. doctors tell us that is unhealthy for children and yet it continues for too many of these kids. at the hearing with we asked who still haven't been reunited, kids who have been separated from their parents under this trump zero tolerance policy. they estimate that 700 children are currently separated and in over 400 of their cases their parents have been deported. so the parents come to the border, the kids are taken away, the parents are invited to leave the country and the kids remain. where are the parents? no record was kept as to where

they were going. how will rereunite these -- reunite these kids with their parents? no one really knows. when you listen to the testimony -- sworn government witnesses there, it was clear that no one from day one even envisioned what this policy was going to do. one of the people who testified before us, a man who's degree and expertise? public -- is in public health said he warned this administration. he said this was not good to do with thirn putting them in an institutional setting. no a single one could point to an effort made to keep track of the kids and parents so some day they could be reunite. in fact, we found that the head of the department of homeland security secretary neilson on june 17 sent out the following tweet. it says, we do not have a policy

of separating families at the border period. the sworn testimony this week tells you that is not true and it wasn't true at the beginning of the zero tolerance policy. there was a policy of separating children from their parents. what this member of the trump cabinet said was just wrong -- just plain wrong. listen to what the department of health and human services said on june 23 in a fax sheet that they sent out across the country. it said the united states government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families. still, here we are six weeks later, and they've fallen 700 children short of what they claim they already knew back in june. these were two falsehoods that were propagated on the american people to try to get them to believe that this wasn't a serious problem.

well we know better because this federal judge got serious about it and set a senate deadline to put these kids back with their families. our government failed to meet the deadline. now read what this federal judge had to say about it. this judge was appointed by a republican president. less you think this is some democrat judge listen to this. the practice of separating these families was implemented without any effective system or procedure of tracking the children after they were separated from their parents enabling communication between the parents and their children after separation and reuniting the parents and their children. that's what the judge said about the zero tolerance policy. i can't remember a more heartbreaking or embarrassing chapter in government history in recent years. to think that our government set out with a policy to separate these children from their parents, forcibly removing them and separating them without any

plans to reunite them. they argued afterwards that we cannot send these kids back to parents who might be dangerous. no one argues that. we can't send them back to parents who are smugglers. i can't argue with that. when we took custody of those children we became -- we accepted a parental spont on -- responsibility on these children. we have not met that responsibility. i asked at some point who's going to accept responsibility for this humanitarian disaster in this trump administration. absolutely no one has. i believe that secretary nielsen should. i believe she should step down because this disastrous policy has given a black eye to the united states. what we have seen happen here is not consistent with our values as a nation. it's not consistent with the kind of treatment that we have given to those who have come to our border over the years.

think back about the refugees who became a part of the united states and a part of our history. think back to the thousands of cubans who said we want to escape communism and come to the united states and think about what a valuable contribution they made. did we punish them when they came into the united states? we accepted them. have cuban americans been an important part of our country? ask three united states senators who are cuban americans. the answer is in the affirmative. think about the soviet jews, those are in the jewish religion in the soviet union facing all sorts of -- think about the vietnamese who worked with us during the war trying to protect our soldiers, trying to be a part of a solution to their problem, risking their own lives in the process. we welcomed them to the united states too. time and again this country has opened its arms to ref few qoo

gees -- ref ewe if these who needed an open hand. we didn't take their children away. we said we'll hear you out. we said if you have a legitimate claim of fear of where you live, we'll stand by you. we know what's happening in honduras, el salvador and guatemala, there are high rates of murder and rape. i met in chicago with one of the immigration lawyers who represents some of these immigrants. she said they believe their children there die if they leave them in their countries. they are willing to put their life's savings on the line in order to hope that they can seek asylum. the alternative is to accept rape and murder on their children. think if that were your choice

in life, what would you do? would you do rg in your -- everything in your power to protect this these children? well they did it. they came to the border and we answered by separating them from their parents and deporting many of them. this isn't consistent with what america is about. we should stand together and not only condemn zero tolerance but make a solid commitment to return these children to their parents. these lost children sadly reflect on our nation and we need these children to be with their parents as quickly as possible. it needs to be our highest priority. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the -- mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: mr. president today the senate voted to pass the defense authorization act. i want to tell you about what's in the bill and about john s.

mccain. this increases the size of our military by 24,000, which is desperately needed. too few have done too much too long. having a larger military means people can stay with their families longerrer, -- longer, takes a lot of pressure off those serving and we need more troops given the threats we have. the equipment they are going to be receiving is the most modern that we have available. we're buying 77 more f-35's which will make enemies of our nation think twice. we're buying -- improving the f-18 which has been a great airplane. the bottom line is we're helping the ukraine who are standing up to the russians. there is so much in this bill to relieve the pain and suffering from defense cuts for the last six or seven years. this begins to restore a hollowed military and improves the equipment gives them more

training more time at home, the largest pay i years 2.6% is the largest pay increase in about nine years, and god knows they deserve it. so there are a lot of good things in this bill to make our military stronger, there are reforms in this bill to make the military act more efficiently. in terms of senator mccain. when you mention john mccain, most people think american hero. they are right to do so. he suffered for our country in a way that few have. he was in prison for over five and a half years. he came back home with honor and dignity like every other p.o.w. and he could have left early but he stayed. he has taken on the pentagon to make it more efficient. he's never lost sight that his primary obligation as a senator is to defend the nation. the men and women in uniform

never had a better friend than senator mccain. the pentagon has never had a more worthy adversary than john mccain. reform and commitment to those who serve go hand in hand. from a personal point of view, i want to thank all of my colleagues for bestowing this honor on senator mccain. he's in a tough fight. never count john mccain out. i've had the pleasure to travel the globe with this man hours and hours on airplanes going to some of the most difficult places in the world to carry the message of what america's all about. i've never known anybody in my life and very few in the history of this country can explain to others what america is all about. john mccain has been in love with this country since he was 17 years old when he went off to annapolis. he has been willing to die and suffer for his country like many others. but when it comes to explaining

america, i've never anyone as articulate and sincere as john mccain. john, i hope you understand that the reason we named this bill after you is that we all love you. i hope you understand this bill, my friend, repairs a lot of the damage you've been talking about for the last six or seven years and this is the best way i know to honor john mccain is to take care of those who are fighting and dying for this country and pushing the pentagon to be more efficient. that's the best honor you could bestow on senator mccain. i hope and pray that he comes back to this body. but i want him to know that even though he's physically not here, his presence is alive and well in the senate. i yield.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we, we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: before we wrap up i would be remiss if i let the day pass without calling our attention to two veteran staff members who have concluded their distinguished service this week.

patrick renzi has served the u.s. senate for 27 years rising to chief reporter in the office of official reporters of debates. patrick is a native of silver spring maryland. his mother eileen also worked in tran crisp including here in the very same office. as my colleagues know well, no route to the senate is a straight line. after completing his studies at the university of maryland and strayer college patrick moved furniture, tried freelance court reporting, and recorded a brief forgivable stint working over in the house of representatives. but by 1991, he'd returned to where it all began. over the next 27 years patrick became a key staff member updating the technology and team that keeps the office of official reporters running smoothly. his staff describe him as a

stalwart chief with great respect for the senate and those with whom he's served. and scott sanborn, mr. president, currently serves at the senate's journal clerk. he arrived in this body back in 1979 as a page for lowell weicker, our former colleague from connecticut. scott wound up serving the secretary's legislative staff as anen assistant -- as an assistant bill clerk. i'm told he impressed so many colleagues so quickly take in -- that in short order he was asked to serve as deputy chief editor and coordinator of the congressional record. scott had become the 20th journal clerk of the united states senate. along the way he helped revolutionize the way the senate record and reviews -- records and reviews its tran crypts. he found ways to increase

efficiency and cost savings and he served as a go-to technical liaison connecting the official reporters with members' offices. so these two gentlemen have combined to contribute literally decades of service to this body to see them both embark on well-earned retirements in the same week serves as a useful reminder of just how many incredibly talented men and women there are who may seldom find themselves in the spotlight but who are absolutely essential for the smooth functioning of the senate in a thousand ways that we all get to take for granted every single day. so we don't say thank you nearly enough around here, so i'm honored to be able to say it today. thank you patrick. thank you scott. we're sorry to see them go, but i know that patrick's wife germane and their nine children

-- nine children -- and scott's worst kim and their two kids must be happy to see what this next chapter has in store. so we bid them farewell, with gratitude for their time here and best wishes for the times ahead. i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1008. the presiding officer: without objection. question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the

judiciary. a. marvin quattlebuam jr. to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 a. marvin quattlebaum jr. of south to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes do have it. mr. mcconnell: i move to consider calendar number 1009. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. t-those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary julius ness richardson of north carolina to be united states circuit judge for the fourth

circuit. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture petition motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 julius ness richardson of south carolina to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit signed by 17 senatorsals follow -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in aered pooh of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 604 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 604 to authorize document production by the select committee on intelligence in united states v. marie bite in my judgment a. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? the without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 2345 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2345 an act to require the federal communications commission to study the feasibility of designating a simple easy-to-remember dialing code and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent the senate precede to the immediate consideration of calendar number 369 s. 1668. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 369, s. 1668 a bill to rename a waterway in the state of new york as the joseph sanford jr. channel. the presiding officer: there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 6414 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6414 aen act to amend title 23 united states code to extend the deadline for promulgation of regulations under the tribal transportation self-governance program. officerster -- the presiding officer: is thereabouts to proceeding in without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the bill be read a thirl third time

and pass the and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2101 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the bill to award a congressional gold medal to the crew of the u.s.s. indianapolis and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the subcommittee discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. the presiding -- mr. mcconnell: i further ask that the donnelly amendment be considered and credit, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the charity lay before the senate the house message to accompany s. 770. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the

following message from the house of representatives. the clerk: hoe relief 10 the bill from the senate s. 6 of 7770 the bill to entitled the director of the national institute of standards and technology to disseminate resources to help reduce small business cybersecurity risks and for other purposes do pass with amendments. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur in the house amendments and ask consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous

consent for my legislative fellow long lamb to be granted privileges to the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. i come to the floor tonight with a simple and clear message which is we must not allow internment camps to be built in the united states of america. i come with this message because we've heard here on capitol hill that even as i speak individuals are planning to bring forward legislation that would in fact create internment camps as a strategy of family incarceration, a strategy that president trump has been championing. so i say tonight absolutely not. we must not allow internment camps to be established in the united states of america. when you look at the history of the world, in the history of america, we realize that in many ways we're still a very young

nation with less than three centuries behind us. and in that comparatively short time we've accomplished great things. we've helped save the world from tyranny and fascism while pushing the boundaries of science. we spread democracy and human rights nations far and wide. we have broken down barriers of race and gender and sexual orientation here at home in a vision of equality and opportunity for all. yet we cannot forget that along with those accomplishments those great accomplishments there's also been some dark chapters in our history. we all are aware of these chapters that the united states embraced slavery from its founding up through the civil war, that we embraced discrimination through segregation and jim-crow laws, that we had in world war ii a

strategy of creating internment camps to imprison our citizens who were of japanese ancestry. and now we have another dark chapter, a chapter in which our government has decided to treat those fleeing persecution from around the world as if they are criminals, to greet them not with lady liberty at a torch saying give me your tired your poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but a different saying. a saying that if you are fleeing persecution and you wash up on the shores of the united states, we will treat you as a criminal. we will tear away your children. and we will throw you in prison. in a span of just a few weeks from may forward into june of

this year the trump team tore around 2,600 young boys and girls from their parents' arms. families coming to the united states fleeing persecutions, seeking asylum, going through all kinds of trials and tribulations back in their home country, all kinds of difficulties on the path of arriving at the united states, having in their mind that vision that we are a nation where almost everyone has in their family history someone who fled persecution, who fled civil war who fled drought and famine, who fled religious persecution. so surely they'd be treated with dignity and understanding as they sought asylum from the persecution they faced back home. but many were stopped instead from coming through the entry points to claim asylum.

many resorted to coming across therefore other points in between the official border points and they faced this new policy this policy concocted by the attorney general, jeff sessions and the president of the united states, donald trump; and the chief of staff and steve miller. and this plan was deterrence, deterrence by afflicting children so as to send a message, if you flee persecution, do not think of coming to the united states. let us recognize that the whole idea of establishing a political tactic a political goal of deterrence through the infliction of trauma on children is a dark and evil place for our government to have gone.

one now now that light has been shed on it, now that america has cried out from boundary to boundary from east to west and north to south and said this is wrong, it is immoral no religious tradition in the world could support this, the administration has ended those family separations those children being ripped out of their parents arms and they are under responsibility to reunify the children with their parents. they have been ordered by the court to have deadlines for those children under 5 and children 5 through 17. they missed the first deadline and missed the second deadline and 700 children are still not reunited with their parents. and reports are coming in on the impact the trauma inflicted on the children and how seriously it has modified their behavior. a recent piece in "the new york times" told the story of a five-year-old boy from brazil.

diago, who was separated from his mother for 50 days. he used to love playing with toys of the minions of the "despicable me" movies. but now his new favorite game is patting down migrants with plastic handcuffs. now when people come to their home he flees he runs away, he hides behind the couch afraid he will once again be torn from his mother's arms. his story is not unique. in fact, we hear story after story after story of children and the reverberations of the trauma they've experienced at the hands of the trump administration children terrified of being separated from their parents for even just a few moments. children whose whole outlook on life whole did the position has been modified -- whole disposition has been modified.

children afraid of engaging in life outside the house. the act of tearing families apart has supposedly stopped with the president's order. he has an executive order which i have in my hand here. but what this executive order plans next is also horrible and shameful. this is a plan to establish internment camps in the united states of america. the president has gone from family separation, tearing children out of their parents' arms to family incarceration where families would be detained indefinitely together. internment camps tent cities out in the middle of the desert, or maybe on military bases, we

have seen this type of policy before. we know how badly it ends for our nation. we made a huge mistake in world war ii locking up japanese american families in internment camps. and we are still dealing with the consequences. after visiting one of those camps in 1943, eleanor roosevelt remarked that, quote to undo a mistake is always harder than not to create one originally, but we seldom have the foresight. in this instance, we should have the foresight. we know the history of the internment camps. we have the ability to stop our nation from making a terrible mistake. we know how history will look on us if we fail to prevent this

mistake and follow the president's plan for internment camps that he has laid out in the aftermath of the -- laid out. in the aftermath of the takoma park on pearl harbor, we allowed fear and bigotry to consume us. we took away the freedom of more than 110,000 americans. freedom, the most basic human right. taken away by our government from 110,000 americans american citizens. we locked japanese americans in prison camps behind barbed wire fences in some of the most inhospitable parts of the nation for no other reason than their japanese ancestry. children grew up not in their communities but behind barbed wire. adults were torn off their land, their farms their orchards

they were torn away from their professions which were in the full spectrum of professions across america to be able to just earn a few cents a day working inside those prisons. families who once owned their homes had a vision for the future, had a vision for the children's future, crammed together for years in wooden shacks behind barbed wire. in a 1943 radio interview dylan mier, the head of the agency in charge of the camps spoke out against them. mind you, this is the middle of the war. he's in charge of the camps. he knows it is wrong. he knows it's destructive. he says, and i quote public opinion feeding on prejudice and fanned by hatred and fear of the unknown will do peculiar things.

and he went on to say even though the war relocation authority is responsible for the operation of the relocation centers, we are convinced that they are not good things. it is not a normal way of life. it produces many kinds of abnormal conditions that are not desirable. indeed, as former first lady laura bush pointed out in her op-ed article in "the washington post" a few months ago, quote we also know that this treatment inflicts trauma. those who have been interned have been twice as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease or die prematurely than those who were not interned. one japanese american hero, fred koramatsu, challenged this

racist policy. he challenged it all the way up to the supreme court in a decision the court would long regrowth. a 6-3 decision. it upheld the constitutionality of these camps. seven decades later history embraces the view of the three dissenting justices. in the words of justice frank murphy racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. it is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the constitution of the united states. -- in the united states of america. which is why a mission created

by president jimmy carter in 1980 found that the internment camps were, and i quote a grave injustice that stemmed from race prejudice war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. it's why when awarding him the presidential medal of freedom in 1998, president clinton said in the long history of our country's constant search for justice, some names of ordinary citizens stand for millions of souls -- plessy, brown parks. to that distinguished list, today we add the name of fred koramatsu. fred koramatsu who challenged the legitimacy of internment camps under the constitution of the united states. in fact, just earlier this year, 2018 chief justice john roberts

said koramatsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided. it has been overruled in the court of history and to be clear has no place in law under our constitution. so it was called a failure of political leadership that we established internment camps in world war ii, and it would be an enormous failure of political leadership if we were to establish internment camps in 2018 and yet i keep hearing that this very plan is being cooked up to be put on the floor of the senate when we return, and that's why i'm speaking about it tonight to say no, absolutely not. those among us who are planning such a deed will face enormous opposition, not just from me but from everybody who cares about justice in the united states of america.

everyone who cares about decency and fairness. everyone who knows that this strategy of ripping children out of their parents' arms was dark and evil and wrong. and we're not going to allow family separation to be replaced by family incarceration. but here we are with this executive order and it says in somewhat bland language, affording congress an opportunity to address family separation. and this executive order this order right here is an argument for establishing internment camps in the united states of america. this strategy laid out by the president must not happen. this policy says that as the official -- this statement says it's the official policy of the trump administration to detain immigrant families together.

what are they talking about? internment camps. not handcuffs for the parents while the children are ripped out of their arms. it's handcuffs for all. it's an executive order calling on the military to provide facilities for housing the immigrant families, and if they can't find them, to construct them if necessary. and this document instructs the attorney general of the united states to try to find a way to overturn a legal settlement known as the flores consent agreement which says that children cannot be detained indefinitely. so this document lays out two strategies to internment camps one by getting the courts to overturn flores consent agreement, and the second, affording congress an opportunity to address family separation. calls on congress to act to make it legal to establish internment camps.

have we learned nothing? well here is what i have to say about this executive order. no internment camps in the united states of america. not now and not in the future. i will absolutely resist such a strategy this presidential vision that is anything but presidential. this vision of a president who is operating in a fashion outside of the vision of the constitution. i know there will be many among us who will join in this effort to resist this strategy. so if my colleagues, any one of them should bring this to the floor, i want them to know this will be a fight. this will be a battle. we will call up the horror of

the past and say it will not be accompanied by horror in the present. we will not go from family separation to family incarceration. internment would be just as wrong today as it was seven decades ago. if we allow this to happen, it's more than a failure of political leadership. it's to allow america to dwell in a deep and dark and evil place. the families are fleeing persecution, they are coming to america to ask for asylum, which they are allowed to do under the refugee convention that the united states is a member of. they may say senator merkley

you believe it's wrong to rip children out of their parents' arms and you believe it's wrong to establish internment camps. what would you do? well here's what i would do. i would reestablish the family case management program. that is a program that worked well that worked very well, but it was dismantled by this administration approximately a year ago to pave the way for family separation to inflict trauma on children. so this program the family case management program what is this program? the president of the united states i don't think knows about this program the program he ended or he doesn't want to know about it. he wants to paint some other vision so let's remind the

president of the united states how this worked, the program that he got rid of, the program that worked so well. a family comes seeking asylum. they present themselves with that case. they're treated with respect and dignity because we are a nation of individuals whose family histories of individuals fleeing persecution, we understand what that is like. we understand what it's like, and we treat people with decency. and the families are put into a case management program while their asylum case is being prepared and the hole point of the program is to -- the whole point of the program is to make sure they show up for their court appointments, make sure they show up for their check-ins, make sure they have someone to guide them through the system so they understand how it works. then they know when and where to show up. they know how to prepare for those meetings. this was a program created by

i.c.e. and homeland security. they put their heads to work. how do we treat people with dignity and respect to make sure they show up at their check-ins and their court appointments, and they designed a very good program. the family case management program, so the families live their life in preparation for their appearances in court and we did not inflict trauma on the children. we did not treat them as pawns in some broader scheme of deterrence. we treated families with basic dignity. and should they win their asylum case then they came into a country that had received and treated them with dignity. and if they lost their asylum case they went back to their country. they were deported, but they had memories of a country that treated them with respect and decency until that asylum case

date arrived. so this program had such a phenomenal success rate that i was stunned when i got hold of the inspector general's report. i want to make sure that folks can see this. this inspector general's report says based on the information provided by i.c.e., that the overall program compliance for all five regions is an average of 99% for i.c.e. check-ins and appointments and 100% attendance at court hearings. now, that mum is studied and i wouldn't share it if it was anything other than the inspector general himself or herself reporting after a thorough investigation.

99% for i.c.e. check ins 100% appointments. wow, how o do you see -- ow often do you see a program that works that well. there was another report and it came when that program was terminated and that report proceeds to have some additional numbers in it, and so this one came after this second report, and it was an after-program report. it was called the family case management program closeout report february 2018. so this was in the hands of the trump administration even as they were planning to end the program, actually did end the program. and what it says is the program operated for 17 months.

it says it was launched in the following cities, in baltimore in chicago in los angeles in miami, in newark. it had different nonprofit organizations, the international institute of los angeles the catholic charities of new york. it served over 2,000 immigrants and it treated them by educating them about how this worked as they prepared for their asylum hearing. it provided them with individualized needs assessments and service plans orientation an information sessions on legal rights and responsibilities and obligations, tracking and monitoring of those obligations including showing up for check-ins, which they did 99% of the time and showing up for court hearings according to the i.g. 100% of the time.

and i.c.e. concluded that it was an overall success. now this evaluation came after the i.g.'s report and it was no longer 100% attendance at court hearings. instead it was 99.3% -- 99.3% -- a the 9% suck -- 99% success rates, including telephonic check ins. when the participants reported, they talked about positive relationships with their case managers and they centered on the trust that was established between the case manager and the participant. well that's pretty amazing success, the program the administration shut down in favor of choosing to deliberately inflict trauma on children.

so we had not one report, not one evaluation, we have two. now, this report from february of this year with all of this positive information about how the program worked, not easy to find it online. it's essentially been hidden. after i was raising this issue on the family case management program, a person brought this report to my team and said, hey did you know there's this other closeout evaluation that lays out the vision of how well the program works in far more detail than the i.g. report. i said, no, i didn't know about that. i will share it with my colleagues which i am doing right now. i don't know why they don't know about it. maybe because this program was so good maybe they were embarrassed. this report says that people wouldn't show up for their court

hearings is simply wrong. that's what i imagined why it wasn't circulated. in this family case management program, they talk about costs. this evaluation and they go through the different strategies the family case management program costs $38 per day. that's per participant per day $38. that compares with family residential facilities at an average cost of $237 per day. $38 versus $237. so the program worked incredibly well and it was far less expensive than detention -- detention family residential facility detention. well in addition we now have

some recent numbers that have been put forward. health and human services has told news outlets that it costs american taxpayers $775 per person per night to house people at tent city internment camps. $775 per person per night versus $38. $38, no trauma, a relationship of respect and trust versus incarceration at $775 per night. so this trump strategy of inflicting trauma on children is wrong at every single level you can imagine. it cost -- a costly inhumane, damaging program with lifetime consequences for the children versus decency respect and

trust, and the program costs just a fraction -- 1/20th of the other program. if you had an option, which would you choose? would you choose the one that costs a fraction of the tent city internment strategy? would you choose a program that builds trust and relationships and has a 99% to 100% rate of check ins 99% to 100% rate of people showing up to court hearings versus a program that does so much damage so many. i've come down here to the senate floor to say one thing as clearly as i possibly can to every colleague. if you are part of the plan to

bring an internment camp strategy to the floor of the senate i will fight that plan with everything i have. it is an evil and dark place for this country to go. we know that from our history. we know that history has said it was a failure of political leadership to have allowed it to happen in world war ii. and i will do everything i can to make sure that we do not have another failure of political leadership that allows the envision of internment camps embedded in the president's executive order to occur here in the united states of america. lady liberty says, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. it speaks to the fact that almost all of us come from family roots that involved immigrants involved people

fleeing persecution. in that poet's words emma laz lazureth says, send thee the homeless tempestt tossed to me. let's keep those fleeing persecution keep their respect and decency. that's what's in our ndaa, a vision of compassion, freedom and opportunity that knows through all too personal of family experiences what it's like to flee religious persecution or famine or war and

how a beautiful thing it is to be treated with respect and decency if you come to the shores of the united states of america. thank you mr. president. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president it's the end of the week here on the senate floor and it's my favorite time of the week, and i think it's the pages' favorite time of the week too because we get to talk about the alaskan of the week, and this is a speech

that i give every week, and the whole purpose is to talk about somebody in my community somebody in my great state who has done something really important for their fellow alaskans or maybe their fellow americans. sometimes it's someone very famous sometimes it's somebody who is just working hard every single day and doesn't get a lot of recognition. we like to come down here and talk about them. we like to brag about them. mr. president, you know, i like to brag about my state. we all like to brag about our states here, you know, when it comes to size, beauty, grandeur, and majestic grandeur, i think that alaska takes the cake. others might disagree. i know the presiding officer loves his state. i know what i want is people to come to alaska. see it for yourself. spend some time up there. we're getting ready for a

recess some of my colleagues coming up to their great states. i guarantee if you come, you will absolutely love it. but it's really more important than anything it's truly the people of alaska that make it such a special place. so we like to celebrate these people that are individualistic rugged tough but very community oriented. and we call them our alaskan of the week. now i'm going to break a little rule here on the alaskan of the week this week because it's going to be the alaskans of the week. not one two. two people who are doing great things and in many ways, they are reinforcing each other's great work in alaska. so i'm going to talk a little bit, though, about one of the challenges. you know, we like to brag about how wonderful our states are

but let's face it, all states, our great nation, we all have challenges and problems. and one of the ones that a number of us back home in alaska are focused on is a really big challenge and a really problematic issue in my state and it's the very high rates of domestic violence and sexual assault we have in alaska. some of the highest rates in the country. this is a horrible thing and it impacts families and of course, victims and your viefers. of course -- survivors. of course it's not just a problem in alaska, it's a problem all across the country. in alaska, it is an acute problem. it is a big problem. the good news, mr. president is we have hundreds, if not thousands of people in alaska who have recognized this is a big problem and have banded together in using their energy and creativity and drive have

turned to the survivors of this abuse in turn to help them and help them break out of what is oftentimes is generational violence family victims after family victims. so mr. president today i want to recognize two such alaskans who are literally leading the way on this very important issue of helping the survivors of these heinous crimes. sitka, alaska resident christine patriot -- pate and anchorage resident -- these two women for decades, have been leading the effort to bring legal services and other services to survivors of domestic violence and sexual

assault in our state. they work together, they are leaders, they have helped hundreds if not thousands of victims and their families. think about that. over the last 20 years. so let's talk about them a little bit. christine in her work, and these done a great job with the alaska network on domestic violence and sexual assault what we call andvsa, which is an umbrella organization for 25 domestic violence and sexual assault programs across the state. christine is a cum laude graduate of the new york university school of law. she came to alaska in 1993, clerked for sitka superior court judge larry zurvus, and worked for alaska legal services in fairbanks and has been with andy

vsa for 20 years doing this really really important work. her demeanor was once described by a reporter as, quote clark kent like, which i would agree with which means she has super powers to help the good guys. those who know her call her wonderful and i would agree with that. they directs the coalitions statewide legal services program which also includes both staff attorneys and approximately 60 active volunteer attorneys. again, to help survivors and victims of these heinous crimes and she also oversees legal training and technical assistance for program advocates. as a matter of fact, i was home a few months ago and went to one of her training programs. she does a phenomenal job. nicole nelson is her compatriot

in arms. she made her way to alaska 20 years ago fresh out of the university college of law and her first job in alaska, still doing it, was to work for alaska legal services corporation. she rose up through the ranks and now she is the director. she, too in my view has super powers and she channels those powers to serve in the righteous cause of justice for the too many victims in my state who need it and don't have access to an attorney to help them. i cannot stress, mr. president how important both the alaska network on domestic violence and sexual assault and alaska legal service corporations are for victims and survivors of these heinous crimes. now, i've had the opportunity and really the honor of working with both christine and nicole

and their organizations very closely over the years still am a huge supporter of all they do and have watched them year after year doing the great work that they do to stomp out the scourge of domestic violence in our state. let me tell you a little story of how we all work together. when i was attorney general of the state we had a big campaign strategy called the choose respect strategy. and one of the elements of that was to get more lawyers to help with victims to get more lawyers, pro bono attorneys to come out and help with victims survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. think about this, mr. president. if you're a rapist, an accused rapist, you get a sixth amendment right to counsel. that's in our bill of rights. if you're the victim, what do

you get? you don't get anything. and far too often the victims don't have any legal representation. they don't know how to use the justice system as a sword and a shield. and what we were trying to do, what nicole and christine have been doing for decades is saying to the survivors and victims wait a minute, we can get you a lawyer. we can help you. we can empower you. so we held these pro bono legal summits throughout the state of alaska and dozens and dozens of lawyers came out of the woodwork and said, we will help you. we'll be your sword and shield in the justice system. and that's what we've done. that's what they have continued to do. and this makes a huge difference. as a matter of fact, of all the studies throughout the country

at how you change this culture of abuse one of the most important things -- it's in every study -- to do is to get victims and survivors an attorney. so that's what they've been doing. and, mr. president we actually recently took that idea here to the senate floor in a bill that senator heitkamp and i cosponsored called the power act which would create another layer of pro bono attorneys. the idea is to create an army of lawyers by the thousands in america to provide legal services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. that's passed the senate. passed the house. came back over here. trying to hotline it. looks like we hit a little glitch today because i can't

imagine any senator who doesn't want to do this. so we'll probably get that done as soon as we're back off recess and that will help take this idea nationwide. but the leaders in our community in alaska have been nicole and christine. and as i mentioned there's no simple solutions on this. but when an abused victim is represented by an attorney, their ability to break out of the cycle of violence increases dramatically. just one study found that 83% of victims represented by an attorney were able to obtain a protective order versus almost 30% of victims without an attorney. but here's the problem. there was a recent report by a national group that focuses on these issues. in 2014, in one day there was over 10,000 victims who went without services, like legal services. so there's a desperate

desperate need. and christine and nicole have been the ones leading the charge. i talk about an army of attorneys to do this kind of probono legal work. in alaska, they're the captains leading this charge. christine likes to, -- to quote one of the advocates she works with when she talks about her work. quote, it's so satisfying to see the relief wash over a person's face when they realize that there's an end in sight and they don't have to live like that in a cycle of violence anymore because they have an attorney representing them. now, nicole has been traveling the globe with her daughter in the past month thanks to a much needed sabbatical grant from alaska's rasmussen foundation. so nicole, i hope you're having a much needed rest. but let me end with a quote written by her about the work that alaska legal services

provides the work that she leads in our great state. quote, in any given day the people who come seeking our services may be moms that have been abused by their spouse, oftentimes in front of their children and they come to us because they do not have the financial means to leave that abuse. and we help them with that. we may have a grandfather who's struggling to care for his grandchildren and fear he is going to lose his home. all of these problems, she says, there is a civil legal solution. unlike in criminal cases where a defendant is guaranteed a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one in civil cases these kind of domestic violence and civil action cases there is no right to an attorney. and what they do is provide it, particularly to victims of these heinous crimes.

christine and nicole lead organizations that are doing great work not only in alaska but nationwide. legal services corporation does this work and i'm a big supporter of them here in the senate. so christine and nicole, thank you, both of you for all the great work you've done over the years. thanks for your tremendous spirit of generosity and kindness. i know i can thank you on behalf of so many survivors of these crimes that you have helped and their families. and thanks for being our joint alaskans of the week. this week in the united states senate. i yield the floor.

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president i assume we're not in a quorum

call. the presiding officer: the senator -- the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. portman: mr. president i want to talk about an issue that's gotten a lot of attention recently and that's our u.s. trade policy. it's an important topic that affects every one of us. it affects our economy. it affects jobs. it certainly affects our foreign policy. i followed it pretty closely over the years. i was a trade lawyer when i first started practicing law. i was u.s. trade representative or ustr under the george w. bush administration. now i'm a member of the senate finance committee which has jurisdiction over these trade issues. most importantly, of course, i'm a senator from ohio which is a state that has a big manufacturing sector, a big agriculture sector, and a state where a lot of jobs cep on -- jobs depend on having a good trade policy. in fact, in ohio, about 25% of our state's factory workers are export workers. in other words they make products that get exported. and today in ohio, about one of every three acre that is planted

gets exported. soybeans corn, wheat. these are good jobs, too. trade jobs on average pay about 16% more than other jobs, provide better benefits. so it's really important to our economy in ohio to have these export jobs. in america we're about 5% of the world's population. and yet we have about 25% of the world's economy. so it's really important for us to have access to the 95% of consumers who live outside of our borders. we want to sell them more. we want to open up markets for our farmers for our workers for our service providers. while promoting exports we also need to ensure that we protect american jobs from unfair trade from imports that would unfairly undercut our workers our farmers and our service providers. simply put what we want is a level playing field where it's fair and where you have reciprocal treatment between countries. if we have a level playing field, by the way, i believe

american workers will be just fine. our workers our businesses can compete and we can win if you truly have a level playing field. we want a balanced approach. we want to open up new markets for u.s. products while being tougher on trade enforcement so we can compete. with my colleagues over the past couple of years i've coauthored a number of laws in this area. one is called the level of the playing field act and it does just that. the other is called the enforce act. these are both bipartisan laws that are helping right now to krabgt down on un -- crack down on unfair trade that hurts u.s. jobs. the level of the phraoeg field act makes it easier for workers and businesses to win cases when foreign companies send us products that are unfairly traded because they're sold below their cost or dumped or because they're subsidized illegally. this puts it easier to put anti-dumping or duties also known as tariffs on those unfairly traded products. that's a good idea. by the way it's sanctioned by the international trade enforcer

called the world trade organization. and this law has worked over the past couple of years to raise tariffs on those unfair imports. the second law called the enforce act helps on the back end by ensuring that once workers win trade enforcement cases, the new duties are actually enforced. it's designed to keep countries from circumventing new tariffs by selling a product to a third country, a third party that then sells it to the united states to get around those tariffs. we don't want people to evade our tariffs. that's the purpose of the enforce act. it needs a little work on its implementation. we need to strengthen it. but the level the playing field act and enforce act are working. since i came to the senate in 2011 i've been involved in more than 40 trade cases where american workers and producers were seeking relief from unfair foreign competition. i'm proud to have received the american iron and steel institute steel champion ward in 2016 for my work to allow steel

workers to compete on that level playing field. in 2016 the act was used to secure three wins against china and several more against other countries in the sector of steel, particularly rolled estate hot rolled steel cold rolled steel corrosion resistant steel the kind of steel used to make cars and trucks among other things. those products now from china rolled steel now faces tariffs of up to 265%. thanks to our legislation thanks to bringing these cases and winning them. this is how trade enforcement should work. it shouldn't just be about saying we're going to raise tariffs just because we can because then other countries will do the same thing. the same thing to us, raising tariffs, which are like taxes. and risking a trade war with escalating tariffs that would make everyone worse off. so enforcement action should be focused on those countries that are engaging in unfair trade practices and violating our trade laws where the commitments

that are required under the world trade organization. we want a level playing field. we want reciprocity to open up more markets for our workers. and we want other countries to send us products their fairly traded. it's pretty simple. we need to be careful about taking action that increases barriers to trade. if we impose higher tariffs without justification we invite retaliation and higher tariffs on our exports. my concern is that we are beginning to do just that. and it threatens the economic gains we've seen this year. since the tax cuts and tax reform were enacted and since important new regulatory relief has been implemented by the trump administration, we've seen the economy grow after a couple of decades of flat wages our economy is increasing. wages are starting to increase and american workers and businesses are benefiting. just last week the commerce department released the economic numbers for the past three months and our economy grew by

4.1% in the second quarter of this year. pro-growth federal policies have resulted in this kind of a strong and growing economy that is trading more jobs and higher wages. we want to continue building on that momentum that we've already started this year with these good fiscal policies. i'm concerned that some of our decisions on trade policy provide a real head wind to that growing economy. that's why when i see the commerce department consider putting tariffs on automobiles as an example and auto parts i become concerned. according to one estimate, a 25% tariff on autos and auto parts could cost624,000 american jobs. right now the administration is doing a lot on the trade front. they have a lot of balls in the air. as far as our trade policy is concerned, i think it's causing a lot of uncertainty out there in the economy. first the administration is still renegotiating the north american free trade agreement or nafta with mexico and canada,

which are, by the way our biggest trading partners in ohio. canada number one mexico number two. i support updating nafta. i think it's a good idea. i support what ustr bob lighthizer is trying to do but after 15 months of talks and uncertainty i'm concerned. we need to see some light at the end of the tunnel. i hope we will soon particularly as it relates to mexico. second the administration is raising tariffs on chinese imports using section 301 of our trade law after conducting a thorough investigation demonstrating the number of anticompetitive ways from administrative approval processes to joint venture requirements to outright cyber threat that china uses to effectively steal american intellectual property. and then third the administration is using a national security waiver to our trade rules called section 232 to raise tariffs as a matter of national security on steel and

aluminum imports from all but four countries. by the way that means those tariffs are being imposed on a number of our strong allies. because of that and the retaliation that it invited this section 232 has been the focus of a lot of attention recently. i agree with president trump that we need to crack down on countries that cheat on trade like china and we need to make sure we do it in a smart and targeted way. china does steal our intellectual property and they have been doing it for years. china tilts the playing field against american firms innovators and workers and gets the technology they need leapfrogging the competition. i support stronger action against this kind of unfair chinese trade and investment practice and i was glad to hear today that serious talks with china may start soon. as we go into these talks we need to be clear about our objectives clear about what we are looking for as americans. is it just trying to address the trade deficit and having china buy more of our exports like soybeans or l.n.g., liquefied

natural gas or is it asking china to make changes struck rally so we can have a more fair trading relationship with two mature trading partners? we need to be sure as we're making clear our objectives we don't continue making negotiations as we're having direct talks. again, my biggest concern is the administration's broad use of this powerful national security tool known as section 232. section 232 comes from a trade act that was passed way back in 1962. it was intended to be used purely for national security purposes. and thus, it's been invoked only rarely a few times the last being in 1986, 32 years ago. section 232 is real an exception to our trade laws because you neither have to show injury to a domestic industry nor any surge or unfair trade with regard to the targeted imports as you would under these other trade laws. in other words under the other

laws you've got to show there is material injury to a domestic company or there's a surge coming in of imports or often that there is actually unfair trade, like dumping we talked about earlier selling it below cost or subsidizing illegally. you don't have to show that under 232. one reason it has hardly been used is precisely it doesn't require showing any negative impact or unfair trade this means other countries when we used this tool, if it's not used for real national security reasons, are likely to respond in kind. simply putting tariffs on our exports for no reason. and that's exactly what's happening. using section 232 we have now put a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports from nearly every country in the world across the board most of whom are our allies. again, the only exemptions are argentina, brazil, australia and south korea.

we've with negotiated quotas with them. for all the other countries in the world we have these tariffs in place including a lot of our close allies. take canada, for example. they're a stalwart ally. thefs troops in -- they have had troops in iraq and afghanistan with us, they are a good neighbor the number one designation for workers and farmers i represent. we actually send as a country more steel to them than they do to us. remember these are about steel and aluminum national security tariffs. so we actually export more steel to them slightly than they send to us. but they are targeted by this 232 as a national security threat for steel. they have responded as you would expect with tariffs of their own on our exports all kinds of exports across the board. according to one publication business insider ohio is their number-one targeted state. that's the state i represent. they slapped tariffs on ohio workers and farmers of more than

$1.7 billion. now let's back up for a second and talk about steel and aluminum. is there an issue with unfair imports? yes there is, i think particularly with regard to steel. we have a global glut of steel and china is the reason. about 15 years ago china had about 15% of the global production of steel. today they have about 50% of the global production of steel. and they don't need it. so they're subsidizing it and they're sending it out below its cost which again is called dumping. that's why we've been using our other trade laws to go after unfair exports and we need to do more of that to stop the transshipments where they send the product to another country which then may process it and send it to us. for certain countries and certain products, i believe there is a national security issue with steel. let me give an example of that. electrical steel something that is critical to our grid, our electric grid. electrical steel is something we absolutely need yet there is

only one u.s. manufacturer left of electrical steel and imports have increased in the last year alone by about 100%. this is an example of how i believe section 232 could be used in a very targeted way that relates directly to our national security. and again, we have other trade enforcement tools at our disposal including level the playing field act we talked about, the enforce act after countries who subsidize who dump their products, these are more precise tools to holding trading partners accountable that should be strengthened and used before section 232 where appropriate. misusing the 232 statute and its national security rationale not only leads to other countries increasing tariffs on all of our exports to them, but it also risks the world trade organization stepping in and us actually losing what i think is an important national security tool. in other words by misusing us, my fear is that we will be taken

to the w.t.o. by other countries. it's already happened. they have filed cases against us. and the w.t.o. at some point could indeed rule, which they never have before, that we cannot use 232 in the way that we have and take away that tool. that would be a big problem because i think it is a tool we should have in our toolbox. and i believe we run an even greater risk of losing this tool when the administration suggests that imports of cars threaten our national security. that's the most recent case that is now working through the system. i want to see more cars made in america. but tariffs like the commerce department is suggesting would make it even more expensive to make a car here. we're told by the auto industry and by the way the big three auto makers oppose the 232 on automobiles. we're told it would increase the cost of a car by about $2,000. this is why i believe we've got to reform the section 232 statute and ensure that any 232 actions are based on a

legitimate national security justification and that congress has a larger role to play in its oversight. a few hours ago my colleagues, senators doug jones and joni ernst and i introduced bipartisan legislation that will help do just that. our bipartisan bill called the trade security act will reform section 232 to better align the statute with its original intent. first it ensures the proper experts in government determine at the outset whether there is a national security threat. our bill requires the department of defense not the secretary of the commerce to assess the potential threat posed by imports of certain products to justify the national security basis for new tariffs under section 232. if the department of defense says the threat is found then the department would send its report to the president. the president would then direct the secretary of commerce in consultation with congress, the secretary of defense and ustr to

develop recommendations. after receiving the remedy recommendation from the secretary of commerce the president could then decide whether to take action. so it creates a two-step process. the first step is determining whether there is a national security threat done by the appropriate office and the appropriate experts in the federal government. the second step would be the commerce department coming up with the remedy. as opposed to now where the commerce department makes that national security recommendation. the bill will also expand the role of congress by giving congress the opportunity to disapprove of 232 action by passing a joint resolution. currently congress can disapprove of section 232 actions to a joint resolution but only when it results in something covering oil or petroleum products. so it's interesting under the current 232 statute the disapproval process works but only as to oil or other petroleum products. our bill, the trade security act we introduced today would

expand that process to include all products. by the way the oil and petroleum products exception is the last time 232 was used about 40 years ago because it was used with regard to oil from libya and from iran. misusing our trade tools not only hurts our exports workers and farmers but also our consumers. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to increase congressional oversight on one of our most important national security tools. when he signed the trade expansion act of 1962 into law that included section 232 president kennedy said, and i quote, this act recognizes fully and completely that we cannot protect our economy by stagnating behind tariff walls, that the best protection possible is a mutual lowering of tariff barriers among friendly nations so that all may benefit from a free flow of goods. increased economic activity, resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers end quote.

that was the context within which 232 was passed. in other words saying we don't want to put up our barriers. we want trade to be fair and reciprocal. neither the president nor the congress intended that section 232 would be used to put up more barriers. in order for the section to apply, the senate finance committee in the legislation said the products must be involved in our national security end quote. so whether it was the president or whether it's the congress, the intent was clearly to tie this closely to national security. so let's restore this powerful and important tool to congress' original intentions when they crafted the law and ensure section 232 is used appropriately and selectively for national security purposes. this legislation will help guide our trade policy and ensure that we keep national security and trade issues separate. the strength of america's economy comes from hardworking and innovative americans and

our plants and farms and shops across this country send products around the globe. we want more of that. they deserve a level playing field and the chance to compete. let's be sure our trade policy gives them that and not escalating tariffs for their exports and higher costs for their families. let's find that right balance including restoring an important national security tool by not misusing it. i urge my colleagues to join us in support of the trade security act to help do just that. thank you mr. president. i yield back my time. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. gardner: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to

the immediate -- calendar number 519. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 519 a bill to amend the foreign assistance act of 1961 and the arms export control act to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions and so forth and furpts. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that the rubio amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment as amended be agreed to, and the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed

to the executive -- to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations -- executive calendar 630 631 632 730 732, 767. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i ask -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nominations en bloc. the clerk: nominations the judiciary, emily marks of alabama to be united states district judge for the middle district of alabama. jeffrey beaverstok of alabama to be jublg for the district of alabama. holly teeter of kansas to be united states district judge for the district of kansas. mary ellen norake of delaware to be united states district judge for the district of delaware. jill otake of hawaii to be united states district judge for the district of hawaii.

mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent the senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that no further motions be in order and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination -- executive calendar 697. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, office of the director of national intelligence jason klitenic of maryland to be general counsel. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made

and laid on the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nomination be principled in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session -- friday, august 3, 10:30 a.m. tuesday, august 7, 10:00 a.m. friday august 10 10:30 a.m. tuesday, august 14 1:00 p.m. i further ask that when the senate adjourns on tuesday

august 14, it next convene at 12:00 noon wednesday august 15 and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, -- approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate be -- senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the quattlebaum nomination. further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. wednesday august 15. finally, that the senate recess following the resumption of the quattlebaum nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on