intelligence community. we've seen a number of individuals we know are tied to that in those individuals have been sanctioned. the people we have no doubt about their involvement we've taken action on and we will see what happens beyond that. there is more definitive information will make a decision at that point. >> we will break away from the white house and take you now live to the floor of the sun at where they after their party lunches. live coverage now on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm here today to give thanks. just a few days ago americans across the country celebrated our national day of thanksgiving. we celebrated food, fellowship and freedom with family and friends. by any measure, we're a people endowed with an abundance of blessings. as americans, we have every reason to be grateful to share the prosperity of economic freedom, religious liberty, and self-government.

today i come to the floor to extend my gratitude for one of the most distinguished public servants ever to serve in the united states senate. it's my distinct privilege to stand here today to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague from utah, orrin hatch. he is a man widely known for his integrity, character, and temperament. he's devoted to his family, his constituents, and his country. with overwhelming support from the good people of utah, he has served his state and all of america in the united states senate for 42 years. in those four decades of service, he has brought honor, humility, humor, and heart to this institution of the united states senate.

he has honed his legislative experience on a broad range of public policy. in fact, none of his peers has led more laws to final passage than my friend, senator hatch. he has built successful bipartisan coalitions to enact laws that make a difference in the lives of everyday americans. as former chairman of the senate judiciary committee and currently the senior member there, he is a champion of religious liberty and the rule of law. he is an advocate for entrepreneurship and free enterprise as well as a champion of intellectual property rights. that includes being the lead senate sponsor of the music modernization act.

he's just old enough to know when laws aren't keeping pace with technology. thanks then to his tenacity, the new law will help ensure songwriterrers, artists, and creators that they will be fairly compensated for their works. like so many americans, senator hatch is a man of humble beginnings. he embraces the promise of prosperity and opportunity that makes america the beacon of the free world. and that brings me to the basis of my remarks today. from his decade of service and chairmanship at the helm of senate finance committee, senator hatch has shouldered some pretty heavy lifting in the legislative trenches to advance

free and fair trade laws, to foster economic growth and opportunity. as we all know, america is home to at least 320 million people. that's a fraction of the world's population. and yet, america leads the world in economic output. thanks to an amazing bounty of natural resources and an economic foundation that rewards ingenuity, productivity and creativity, our country -- the united states -- produces goods and services that consumers around the world want to buy. senator hatch and i share a core philosophy. trade barriers as a winning formula for prosperity. to paraphrase a philosophy that

often attributed to our 35th president, a rising tide lifts all boats. today i want to give credit where credit is due. thanks to senator hatch's unflinching leadership and unwavering commitment to advance the principles of free and fair trade, america's formula for prosperity and opportunity stands strong for generations to come. it's virtually impossible to recall any trade policies in recent history that does not have the fingerprints of my esteemed friend, senator hatch, all over those documents in fact, he led the renewal of the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act of 2015. it paved the way for a robust,

transparent review of trade negotiations. like senator hatch, i understand america needs to speak with one voice on the world stage for effective lasting trade agreements. we also agree on the constitutional authority of the legislative branch to maintain oversight of these trade agreements. consultation with congress is a focal ingredient to ensure america's workers, job creators, and consumers benefit from the global economy. senator hatch also steered through bipartisan, bicameral trade legislation that updated our customs laws. it authorized the u.s. customs and border protection to

strengthen travel and trade enforcements at our borders. passage of the trade facilitation and trade enforcement act of 2015 holds our trading partners very accountable. it preserves the twin pillars of america's most important economic asset. that is innovation and intellectual property. putting in place effective tools to protect intellectual property and thwart counter fit and illicit products from infiltrating the supply chain protects all of our consumers, all of our workers and our job creators. senator hatch understands that trade agreements can do more harm than good without proper enforcement. unfair trade can lead to bad trade. that is bad for america.

tax and trade cheats undermine our economy. senator hatch has worked tirelessly throughout his years at the helm of the u.s. senate finance committee to weed out wrongdoers and at the same time sow seeds of accountability and transparency in our international trade regime. detecting u.s. packers, copyrights and trademarks are essential to u.s. innovation, investment and prosperity in the 21st century. senator hatch has also worked to eliminate barriers to trade that help developing nations create more open economies. his long-term commitment to renew the generalized system of preferences helped lower input

costs for u.s. job creators and our manufacturers. on senator hatch's watch, investment and opportunity has grown around the world. that rising tide includes the african growth and opportunity act and other trade agreements that facilitate economic development and democracy in developing nations. expanding markets' access is good for america. as my manufacturers and farmers in iowa tell me time and time again, that is the case. they want the opportunity to compete in every market for every sale. americans want to do business on the world stage and compete on a level playing field. thanks to senator hatch's leadership, with a trade

extension preference act of 2015, we expanded market opportunities in developing countries. once again, quoting president kennedy, a rising tide lifts all boats. and when things haven't gone according to plan, senator hatch has worked effectively to strengthen u.s. trade remedy laws, including updates such as electronic reporting requirements, to hold bad actors to account, and to protect the health and safety of consumers for imported goods and services. building on the passage of the american competitiveness manufacturing act of 2016, chairman hatch also led the way to further reduce trade barriers , boost economic benefits, and foster

competition for u.s. businesses businesses, our services, and the people that provide those services, and our manufacturers. the miscellaneous tariff bill of 2017 untangles the burdensome red tape of interagency petitions and enforcement that can make or break a business due to unfair trade shenanigans. it strengthens transparency and fairness to help american manufacturers and their workers compete for business. in a nutshell, this law helps u.s. businesses simply to stay in business. at the end of the day, all of what i said are things among others that fuels the u.s. economy. the opportunity to compete for every sale in every market.

senator hatch will leave behind a remarkable legacy and a very big gavel. from one public servant to another, senator hatch, i'm grateful for your service. you have an impeccable record and a long list of a -- achievements that lift the tide for generations to come. thank you for all you have done for your state, for your country, and this institution of the united states senate. to my dear friend, from the bottom of our hearts, barbara, my wife, and i are grateful for your friendship and wish you well for the future. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the president pro tempore, the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i want to thank my dear colleague from iowa. he's one of the greatest senators i've served with and

he's just a wonderful friend and a wonderful senator. he's worked his tail off the whole time h he's been here. so i'm grateful for your kind remarks. it means a great deal to me. thank you so much.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i have the great pleasure today to talk about a friend. it's a bittersweet moment because that friend is choosing not to stay with us here in the senate. he didn't run for reelection. he is going back home to utah, but i want to take a minute to talk about his incredible accomplishments here as a public servant over a 42-year career, over four decades here in the senate. you know what? some people come here because they want to be somebody. orrin hatch came here because he wanted to do something for people. and, boy, he has done that. time after time he has stepped up to serve the american people.

when senator hatch retires, the senate will be losing not only our president pro tempore -- that means that he's fourth in line to be president and he's the president pro tempore here of the senate, the most senior member -- but we're also going to lose somebody who over the years has been a mentor for a lot of us. because he's a person who is committed to legislating, to making a difference in the lives of the people of utah and the people of our great country. he's been a statesman, so at a time of bare knuckled politics, isn't it nice to have that model. and that's orrin hatch. back in 1976, this kid from pennsylvania, blue-collar kid from pennsylvania, who had been then a union member, card-carrying union member, of which he is proud, and later went to law school and back in salt lake city a successful litigation attorney, decided to run for the united states

senate. now he was running against a three-term incumbent. normally that's not a recipe for success, but he had a rare and impressive victory for a first-time candidate, and he hasn't looked back since. when he got elected, i think he probably was a little surprised, but he also realized that he owed something to the people of utah, and that's to put his nose to the grindstone and make a difference for them, and that's what he's done. they say he has sponsored more bills that have become law than any other living member of congress. he might even have that record for any member of congress, but certainly for any of those of us who are still around. he's the former chairman of the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee, also called the help committee. he's the former chairman of the senate judiciary committee. he's currently the chairman of the all-powerful senate finance committee, and i say that somewhat jokingly but truly that

committee has jurisdiction over such a broad range of issues, all of which senator hatch has touched. i've gotten to work with him on a lot of those issues over the years when i was in the ways and means committee in the house and is now on the senate finance committee. we worked together on tax reform, health care legislation, intellectual property legislation and so much more. i also had the honor of working very closely with him when i was u.s. trade representative because the senate finance committee handles trade matters matters, and he was always extremely involved and engaged in expanding the opportunity for u.s. workers and farmers to sell their products abroad. with a slew of achievements to highlight, it is his most recent accomplishment that i want to talk about very briefly and that is the devotion he gave to tax reform. it had been 31 years since we had significant tax reform in this body. he set up working groups and they were bipartisan and i

cochaired one of them with senator schumer who is now the democratic leader. he said, let's go to work on this thing and, frankly, a lot of people didn't give him much of a chance. why? it had been tried previously and unsuccessful and here we are in a partisan atmosphere. he shepherded through the process what i think is historic tax reform and what i know is helping the people i represent. it's helping small businesses, it's helping american workers. it's helping to give people opportunity that they would not otherwise have had. so 31 years, think about that, back then senator hatch was a second-term senator, pete rose still played for the cincinnati reds, ronald reagan was president of the united states. after 31 years it's probably a good idea to update the tax code. and he did that. it's pro growth, investing in people, equipment, and jobs, and, as a result, i believe, you see this expansion of our

economy out there. i think it's the biggest single reason for it. wages, finally going up for the first time really in decade and a half. and families having just a little more cash to be able to spend for their christmas shopping, for their retirement, for their health care, for their kids and grandkids. that is what senator hatch intended when we crafted that new law and that is a heck of a capstone for an amazing career. i'm grateful for his work in other areas, protecting religious freedom, fowchg a lot on the -- focusing on the tech community and how we can help in congress to provide legislation that helps them to be successful which encouraged the economic growth that we have seen in this country in the last several decades, but also getting out of the way when necessary to ensure that technology can continue here in the united states to be at the cutting edge. he even has helped songwriters. some might think that is selfish

of him because he is a songwriter himself. he did it because he realized that songwriters deserve to be able to get al responsible return -- to get a responsible return and protect the intellectual property that they have embedded in their music and videos. so he's been a hero to the folks in the music industry as a result. by the way, he's not done. this week, next week, and the week after senator hatch is leading a bipartisan effort with senator brown to save the multiemployer pension system. now, folks, this is not a task that people take on because it's fun. it's difficult. it's difficult on substance, it's difficult on politics. who is back in the lead? orrin hatch as cochair of the select committee of this congress formed to be able to finally come up with a way to keep these pensions from going under, keep the government entity that ensures the pensions, which is called the pension benefit corporation from going under and ultimately to

ensure that our economy and thousands of businesses are not impacted so negatively because we're going to lose a lot of businesses. we're going to lose the ability for us to be able to provide people with their hard-earned retirement money unless we fix this system. once again he is at the lead trying not to do something for -- something good for him, or good for him politically, but something for the country that he knows has to be done. orrin hatch epitomizes what it means to be a civil leader. he doesn't have to give speeches on it. he practices. he is a model of a serious legislator. most importantly, he is a gentleman who treats everyone with respect, everybody, regardless of your political focus, regardless of who you are in this place, what your station in life is, orrin hatch treats

you with respect and dignity. despite all of these legislative comishments during -- accomplishments during his four decades in the senate, what is he most proud of? his family. i got to know that. i met his son in the first bush white house. this was about 30 years ago. his wife, elaine, and he have been together now for more than 60 years. they've got six children, 23 grandchildren and 24 great grandchildren. that 24 might have increased since i started talking. but he's got a lot of .they. even as he retires as the president pro tem, i know he will stay busy with the hatch foundation and staying busy with that growing family. that is nothing compared to shepherded all of those grandchildren and great grandchildren. orrin hatch, we thank you for what you have done. i know i speak for this body as

a whole when i say that your impact as a whole during your time in the senate has been one made better from being around you and made this country better. i'm grateful for having the opportunity to work with you as a colleague and look forward to the pleasure of our continuing friendship. enjoy your retirement, orrin. well deserved. godspeed. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: my gosh. i want to thank my colleague for his kind remarks. i didn't expect him. i didn't realize this was going on until a few minutes ago and i shot over here. grateful to you. thanks for that.

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this afternoon to say a few words about a colleague, a friend, a mentor, and a man that i admire very, very much and have so much respect for, my colleague senator hatch. you know, in pennsylvania, as in many states, along the sides of the roads in various towns you often see these commemorating plaques of historically significant places.

in pennsylvania there are these beautiful cast aluminum, they are painted blue and there's gold lettering and they tell you something unique about little burrows, towns, villages, or sometimes sites in big cities all across the commonwealth. there is such a commemoration at the house where betsy ross made the first american flag. there is a -- a marker that signifies the spot where president lincoln gave the gettysburg address, there is the site of the first world series in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. now, i'm not a member of the commission that makes the decision about these things, but if i were, i think you could make a great case for a current and unique pennsylvania success story. many of my colleagues already

know chairman hatch is actually a son of pennsylvania. he began with very humble roots in the great city of pittsburgh, pennsylvania, where he attended the elementary school and grew up in a hard-scrapple neighborhood. he developed an amazing tenacity, which he we've all seen and come to know that has stayed with him to this day. as a matter of fact, my understanding is the tenacity started at an early age. i understand there was one season when a young orrin hatch on the baldwin high basketball team managed to foul out 15 times in one season. pretty tough and tenacious guy on the basketball court he was. but he wasn't just a good athlete. the city of pittsburgh helped to nurture in orrin hatch his love

for music. he was a regular attendee, among other things, at the symphony orchestra at the mosque in oakland which i think contributed a little bit to his life-long love of music. he was a hardworking guy from the beginning. in high school then-orrin hatch worked his summers as a wood lather. he was a card-carrying member of the afl-cio and that helped to put him through school. but if you had to pick one place to put the marker that would be calling attention to this wonderful son of pennsylvania, it might actually be a chicken coup in the pittsburgh area because while he was struggling to make ends meet right after college, orrin hatch renovated

the chicken coup in his parent's backyard, turned it into a little could thage, and -- could thage, and that's where he lived while he was attending pittsburgh university on a scholarship. the future chairman hatch graduated from that law school and practiced law in pittsburgh for seven years and was recognized as a formidable attorney in pittsburgh in western pennsylvania before leaving to utah where he would launch, then looked improbable, but then turned into this successful career in government. of course, the challenge, if you were going to put one of these markers up is, what would you say? there's just so much to say about chairman hatch. it's hard to encompass late his success in this body certainly

on a marker or even in a speech, but let me try to touch on a few of the high points. it's amazing how long he has been so accomplished in this great body. before i even graduated from college, senator hatch had already worked to successfully pass one of the initiatives for which he has become well known. you know, in medicine,ing as the president knows -- as the president knows, we have a term known as orphan conditions, this refers to rare diseases, diseases that afflict fewer than 200,000 americans. while they are narrow in the scope of any particular disease, cumulatively they do affect quite a significant number of americans. they are conditions like cystic fibrosis and a.l.s. and because any one of these orphan conditions affects relatively few people, the economics of developing a

treatment for them really didn't work and from 1973 to 1983, the f.d.a. actually approved only ten orphan therapies over ten years for all of the hundreds and hundreds of orphan diseases that afflict millions of people cumulatively. as chairman of the committee on labor and human resources, the predecessor to the help committee, senator hatch worked across chambers and across the aisle with representative henry waxman and in 1983 they passed the orphan drug act and it increased incentive for developing drugs for these rare but really problematic conditions. and since that time, there have literally hundreds and hundreds of for fan -- orphan products that have been approved and come on the market. while that law has been updated

over the years to reflect changing technology and changing dynamics in medicine, the fact is the orphan drug act that senator hatch authored as a relatively new senator has undoubtedly had a profound difference in saving lives and improving the quality of lives for millions of americans who previously had little or no hope. that's a very, very big deal. and the very next year chairman hatch achieved passage of a really another monumental law called the drug price competition and patient term restoration act but everybody here refers to it as hatch-waxman and this is the legislation that really laid the foundation for the generic drug industry that we see -- that we see today. this has been an astonishing, revolutionary innovation that has been enormously helpful for

american consumers. you go back to 1984, and only about 19% of all the drugs dispensed in america were generic. over 80% were branded drugs. and that is important because branded drugs are vastly more expensive than generic drugs. by 2017, largely as a result of the legislation that senator hatch authored, that dynamic had completely flipped. in fact, it more than flipped. by 2017 branded drugs are less than 15% of all the drugs dispensed and generic drugs, the low-cost alternative, are over 85% of all the medicines dispensed in america. this one change alone results in saving american families billions of dollars a year on therapy health care -- on their health care costs. his list of accomplishments is a long one. i couldn't go all through it,

couldn't begin to but to touch on some of the other big ones, the creation of the health insurance children's program, the dietary supplement and education act. all of this happened before i got to the senate, some many years ago. then in 2010 i was elected to the senate. i had this wonderful privilege shortly thereafter. that was the privilege of working on the senate finance committee with senator hatch as our chairman and our leader. and it was a privilege for me for a lot of reasons, not the least of which as i've had a chance to see up close, in person, firsthand his leadership style, how effective he has -- he's a role model for anyone who wants to have a successful career as a u.s. senator. tremendously productive. his work to repeal medicare's flawed sustainable growth rate which year after year plagued

health care. there seemed to be no solution. but senator hatch figured that out. he was principallably responsible for passing the chronic care act and anybody in the senate could learn a lot from his focus on oversight of our nation's foster care system as well as his role in shaping the finance committee's response to the prescription drug abuse and the opioid crisis. it's a very, very long list of really, really important reforms and innovations in health care. but it's not just health care. probably what i think will be one of senator hatch's most lasting legacies is the leadership he provided to make it possible for all of us to pass the most comprehensive tax reform in over 30 years. our tax code was broken for a long time. without senator hatch's leadership of the finance

committee, it would still be broken today. but instead, he helped us to take an outdated, uncompetitive tax code and transform it into a competitive pro growth tax code bringing down our corporate rate to 21%, reversing the trend of companies moving headquarters abroad, reforming our international tax rules to encourage investment domestically. allowing business to immediately write off capital investment. that has already and will continue to lead to a surge of investment which enhances worker productivity which is a necessary precondition for wage growth which we are now seeing. these are the fruits of senator hatch's labors. he insisted that we lower taxes at every income level. so virtually all americans save on their federal tax bill and the result has been one of the strongest economy -- the strongest economy in over a

decade by many measures much longer than that. consumer confidence at an 18-year high. for the first time that i know of in american history, we have more job openings in america than there are people looking for jobs in america. unemployment benefit claims hitting a 45-year low. in fact, unemployment is the lowest it's been since 1969. these are unbelievable numbers. african american unemployment, all-time record low. hispanic unemployment, record low. youth unemployment, a 50-year low. and as a result of all this demand for workers, average hourly earnings are rising at the highest year-over-year increase in a decade. mr. president, that story is true and was made possible by senator hatch. it was roughly 50 years ago when the hatch family left pennsylvania for utah. that was our loss. it was a big gain for utah.

they gained a great man, a good man, a future statesman. but i will insist that the commonwealth of pennsylvania deserves to take a lot of pride in having contributed at least in helping to shape this good, kind, decent, honorable, and extremely influential man and his life. mr. president, i want to give my personal thanks to senator hatch for his leadership, for the fact that he has been such a good and honorable man. he enhances the reputation of this body, and he has set a great example for all of us to follow. i wish my friend and mentor a very, very long and happy retirement. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i just can't express my gratitude for the kindness of my dear friend from pennsylvania this means so much to me. i didn't even realize it was going to happen. i hustled over here when i heard it was. so i'm grateful you to and grateful for the kind remarks you've made. i couldn't have asked for more. it was so decent of you as you always exhibit. you're a great senator, and i really appreciate your support here today. thank you so much. mr. cassidy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i would like to thank the senior senator from utah who's retiring at the end of congress. senator hatch's faithfully served the public for 40 years in the u.s. senate, constantly using the interface of public policy in the free market to find the best outcome for the

american citizen. if the responsibility of congress is to pass legislation that improves the lives of americans, senator hatch has met this responsibility. as two examples of how when i was a doctor before entering politics treating patients, senator hatch helped me take better care of my patients, let me give these. the hatch-waxman act leveraged the free market to increase the availability of generic drugs, more affordable medicines and the second example i would give, the 1997 balanced budget act creating the children's health insurance program also known as chip which gave greater access to health care for americans in need. that benefited me as a doctor taking care of my patients. as a senator it was an honor to work with him this past year to reauthorize the chip program and to continue efforts to make prescription drugs more

affordable. on a personal note, shortly after joining the finance committee, chairman hatch sent me a letter welcoming me to the committee and making his office available to help in any way his office could. now, if there is a defining characteristic of senator hatch is that he listens. whether fellow senators, the people of utah, or the people of the united states, senator hatch listens and works to find a mutually beneficial outcome. this happened when the federal government came after a company in prairieville, louisiana, a construction company for a record violation occurring well beyond the government's legal authority. the district of columbia circuit court of appeals stepped in, unanimously ruled to stop the government overreach, but the obama administration issued a rule to permit the practice despite the d.c. circuit court ruling. knowing that this was an important issue for companies in my state as well as in the rest of the country, chairman hatch

worked with me to lead legislation to permanently protect businesses from this kind of government abuse of power. again, using the free market or protecting the free market from government abuse. another example i'll give would be during tax reform and senator hatch listened to colleagues' concerns and ideas about how to improve the tax cut and jobs act bill. to give our company the tools to succeed. the final product was better for it. he worked with me to strengthen and preserve the historic tax credit, which is instrumental in over 780 restoration projects in louisiana. when you go to new orleans and see all these old buildings now shining once again in glory, probably helped by the historic tax credit, leveraging $2.5 billion in private investment, creating over 38,000 jobs in louisiana alone. again, marrying, if you will,

the free market with public policy. the last issue that i will mention of the many that i could is the following. since first elected, senator hatch has worked to help americans in their retirement years by increasing access to various types of retirement savings plans to ensure that the widest range of people save for their future. his legislation gave businesses, particularly smaller businesses, the tools needed to offer retirement plans to workers at the lowest possible cost. leveraging the interface of government policy with the market to improve the lives of many, many in their retirement. he pushed for sound solutions to the pension issues facing state and local governments. again, using the interface between government policy in the market to lower the cost of medications, to increase the access -- to increase access to health care. he proploated the use of sound policy to allow the american economy to thrive. it is this work that those of us

who remain in congress must now pick up and continue. scripture says the greatest among you shall be your servant. we've been blessed to have had senator hatch's wisdom and leadership in the senate. we've been blessed to have his wisdom and leadership for our country. and we thank him for his great service to the people of utah, to the people of louisiana, to all americans. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i'm grateful to my colleagues, especially my colleague from louisiana for his kind remarks on the floor of the united states senate. it means so much to me. i just want him to know that. i want the others to realize how much i appreciated their taking time to come to the floor and express their opinions about my service in the senate. this is a difficult thing for me because i love the senate. i love both sides.

i love my democratic colleagues. it's no secret that i've worked with a lot of them to bring great legislation to the floor of the senate and to pass it. i have to say my colleagues on my side, there's not one i don't respect. every one of them i have great fondness and affection for and i sure appreciate the senator from louisiana and the others who have spoken here today. so, mr. president, i am genuinely touched by the kind words and thoughts from my respected colleagues. senators grassley, portman, toomey, and of course cassidy. you are all dear friends, excellent senators, and i'm very grateful for your comments. but more than that, i am deeply grateful for your friendship and the impact and dedication and patriotism have had on me. of course, that also holds true for all members of the finance

committee with whom i've had the honor and privilege of serving. recently in the finance committee, we passed comprehensive tax reform, a ten-year chip extension, critical five-year extension of the highway trust fund, and t.p.a. along with several other trade bills. i can say with great confidence most of these accomplishments would not have born fruit without help from each of you and many of our friends on the committee. today, mr. president, marks one of the last times i will have the opportunity of standing before the senate to speak on my work within the finance committee's vast jurisdiction and of course the fights and victories i've been a part of. while we may not have been able to close on many of these achievements until recently, they have all been built on hard work that i, other members of

the committee, and the wider senate have engaged in over the past few decades. for example, earlier this year, i was very happy to see a ten-year reauthorization of the children's health insurance program. or chip. ten years, that's the longest chip extension in the history of the program. and i'm grateful to my colleagues for it. the program provides insurance to over nine million children in distress a year. creating chip was a bipartisan model of success. senator ted kennedy and i were only able to pass chip the first time because we both were willing to cross the aisle to see this program succeed. this bipartisan work ethic extended to many pieces of legislation i worked on while on the finance committee. in 2015 we were able to renew trade promotion authority, which is one of the most important tools congress has and allows us

to work hand in hand with the executive branch to advance our nation's trade agenda. t.p.a. helps ensure our trade agreements are held to the highest standard. not every piece of legislation i am proud of has gone through without a fight, though. i can't forget last winter when i was so proud to be a part of shaping the historic tax legislation that is boosting economic growth today, lowering unemployment today, and spurring job creation today. we worked hard at the finance committee to fix the broken tax code and by all accounts it appears that we did a pretty good job. this legislation was built on years and years of work at the finance committee by my colleagues and i'm very appreciative of them. i led the creation of working

groups, working papers and held 70 hearings on how to improve the tax code since i became the top republican on the finance committee. as part of tax reform, we were also able to repeal the individual mandate tax, which forced americans to buy health insurance they did not want or could not afford. these are just a few of the accomplishments that i've been privileged enough to shepherd through during my service, and they're darn few compared to what we've been able to do. while i am proud of these accomplishments, there is always more to be done, which is why, in addition to thanking all of my friends, colleagues, and mentors throughout the years, i'd like to share some parting words of advice that i've picked up from my work on the finance committee and other committees. for those who will remain and join this chamber. i see these next few years as critical to the future of our

country, to the future of our ideals, and to the future of freedom not only here but throughout the world. as sunk mr. president, i have -- as such, mr. president, i have a few suggestions i'd like to make to my colleagues. fairs, be ernest -- first, be ernest, be honest and guard your integrity. if we cannot reason it out and speak honestly among ourselves and our constituents, it will be impossible to enact lasting and meaningful change. to quote my good friend, senator kennedy, quote, integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. deceit is a poison in its veins, unquote. that means sometimes often when it is least convenient, we must speak the hard truths. that process will often lead to discord, falling short or struggling for years to fix

vexing problems, or disagreements. and as winston churchill once famously said, quote, you have enemies, good. that means you stood up for something, something -- sometime in your life, unquote. so have courage and act. second, if you don't care who gets the credit, you'll be amazed at what you can achieve. in politics, this can be a hard sentiment to swallow. but focusing on taking the credit more often than not undermines outcomes. most of the pieces of legislation i am most proud of had dozens of cosponsors, were widely seen as bipartisan, and have remained on the books largely because i did not get everything i wanted. an article of my faith, quote, if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good repour or

praiseworthy, we seek after these things, unquote. that article seeks only to the results and not at all on taking the credit. finally, be grateful, be kind, and be quick to forgive. at the end of the day, my friends, we are all people, and people often disagree. our differences may be as innumerable as our valuables, but if we start with the premise that every member's intent is to improve our country and the life of its citizens, then our disagreements are logistical and not personal. mr. president, i have always truly believed that just about every member of this body wants to do the right thing for the american people, but they sometimes want to go about it in different ways. what we must never do is question a fellow senator's dedication to their country. we must never question their

dedication to democracy, and we should never disparage them personally when each of us have given so much. our job in congress is the difficult task of aggregating disparate preferences and molding them into laws that make people's lives better. that leads to what many describe as sausage making, the process generates heated debates and sometimes rancor. yet i have no doubt about the convictions to do good on the part of all my esteemed colleagues on the finance committee and in congress in general. i have no doubt about how sincere and convicted my good colleagues really are. i've enjoyed everyone here. i have to say that if you work

hard and you study hard and you open your mind to the other person's ideas and ideals and you're willing to make some changes that accommodate others, and you're willing to realize that you don't have all the answers, you can have a great time here. you can be very successful, and in the end be able to retire, as i am, feeling like i've done a good work here. i love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i love this country with every fiber of my being. i love the constitution which gives us the freedoms that we all take so much for granted throughout this country. i'm grateful for honest, decent

people, like all of you who i've served with in the united states senate, both now and in the past. i'm grateful for the senate rules. i'm grateful that little, scrawny u.s. senator from utah could lead a fight against an outrageous labor bill that everybody knew was wrong, and actually win it on the floor of the senate because it just got the ability to stand heards and take the abuse. -- to stand here and take the abuse. without really helping -- i was raised in the union movement. i actually held a union card. i earned through apprenticeship,

my journeyman's license. i am proud of that. i am proud of my union friends. when you try to take unfair advantage, somebody has to stop it. i've been grateful that i was given that assignment early on in this matter with 62 democrats and only 38 republicans. i can still remember a number of democratic senators coming up to me and saying, hey, kid -- because i was still pretty young then. hey, kid ... you've got to win this. this is bad for the country. and i would ask them, well, are you going to help me? and often -- more often than not, they would say, with i can't help you, but i'm with you. there was a lot of pressure. there was a lot of effort made to try and stop those men from

doing what's right -- and women, by the way. if we had not won on labor law reform, we'd have gone straight to socialism and it would have been the end of this great country, and we've come close a few other times as well. this is, without question, the greatest country in the world. without question, this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. without question, i acknowledge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as tremendous statesmen and women who really have been here for the right reasons. i am grateful that i've had the opportunity of serving this body o.n. this body and grateful for the 42 years that i've put in. can't say i've enjoyed every one of those years, but looking back on it, i think i have to say

that i really enjoyed being here. and i love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. and i want this body to continue on and be successful for america -- a lot more than america, for the rest of the world, because this is where freedom really exists. this is where freedom can be maintained. this is where freedom can be felt in your guts. i've felt it. i know a lot about freedom. i know a lot about the united states senate. i know a lot about my colleagues and the good things about them. i am going to remember the good things. i'm not going to remember things that used to irritate me or

rankle me i am grateful for this body. i'm going to miss it terribly. but, on the other hand, i think there comes a time when you really ought to hang it up, not because i can't do this work anymore -- i sure can -- but because i worked hard to get a worthy successor. and mitt romney is going to be that. he is an outstanding resume being. he is an honest, decent, morally upright human being, who i think will work hard, will be a great asset to the united states senate. yes, he won't have the seniority that i have as the most senior republican in the united states senate, but he has a lot of things going for him, and i suspect that he'll make a great addition to the united states senate. and knowing that he was willing to run, having chatted with him

and talked to him about running, i feel really decent about wrapping it up and not goodbye but i'll be watching. i'll be praying for you. i'll be doing everything in my power to support both houses of congress in this, the greatest country in the world with the greatest set of legal principles the world has ever known -- and i think with the greatest people that we've ever known p. so with that, mr. president, i express my gratitude to the united states senate, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both presently in the senate and those who have gone on to other worlds.

i want to personally express gratitude to everyone here, as virtually everyone has shown me great favor and great kindness. when i came here, i came here to fight senator kennedy, because i thought he was too liberal and that he was not a good senator. i don't think he had passed really any legislation when i got here. i don't think he did until i became chairman of the committee but he was a great legislator, and he did have an awful lot to say on this side. and i think he'd be the first, if he were alive today, to shea that we finally talked it out -- to say that we finally talked it out together, decided to work together, decided to accomplish things together, decided to

stand together. and when we were in battles, they were really hard-fought battles. they were battles on principle, for the most part. and i have to say that i'm grateful for the experiences that i've had in the senate with virtually every senator that's been in the senate. in all my years of being here, i have to say that i've -- that i have love for every one of the senators who served here. there were a couple i have less love for, but by and large i even have love for them. these folks in this senate are really good people. they care about the country. they care about trying to do what's right. they're willing to fight for their principles, and they can be worked with. and i challenge my colleagues to work together in the best

interests of this country, and if you will, this country is going to go on and be a very, very happy, prosperous and successful country. having said that i'll end by saying i'm so grateful of the privilege of being in this body for 42 years and knowing all of you, our clerical workers, our stenographers, and of course the parliamentarians, secretaries, all of the people affiliated with the united states senate. no wonder it's the greatest deliberative body in the world. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: woe are. ms. klobuchar: i ask that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today on two matters, and i'd like to begin by expressing my opposition to the nomination of thomas farr, to the federal

district court for the eastern district of north carolina. as a senator from a state with a tradition of high voter turnout, in fact in the last presidential election with the highest voter turnout in the country, in this election a few weeks ago, nearly 64% of minnesota voters cast their ballot. this isn't just registered voters. it's eligible voters. and we are talking about an issue that in my state and in so many places around the country is fundamental to our democracy. access to the polls. it is the central pillar of our democracy. if people can't vote, they can't have a say and we don't have a real democracy. it's that simple. that's why i am here to voice my opposition to thomas farr because of his long record of defending discriminatory voting

laws and redistricting plans. in north carolina, mr. farr defended one of the most restrictive voting laws that we have seen which in addition to establishing a discriminatory voter i.d. requirement, eliminated same-day voter registration which, by the way, i have spent a lot of time on this and have a bill to institute this across the country. same-day voter registration is really the key. when you look at the top ten states for voter turnout, some are red, some are blue, some are purple. the key -- what do they have in common? they have same-day registration because it just makes it easier for people to vote as long as they can prove where they live with a neighbor, a gas bill, you name it, they are able to register that day. and that is the key when you look at all the numbers. what did mr. farr do? he actually wrote and defended, i should say, one of the most restrictive voting laws eliminating same-day voter registration. he reduced early voting and did

away with voter registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. how did he do it? he did it by defending those laws. when the law was challenged in court, the fourth circuit court of appeals found that it was enacted with the intent to discriminate defense minority voters. in its ruling, the court said that the law targeted minority voters -- and this is a quote from the circuit which is actually one of the more conservative circuits. they said that they did it with almost surgical precision. mr. farr also defended north carolina's restricting plan against claims that it used race as the predominant consideration in drawing two congressional districts. a district court found that the plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymanderer. the case went all the way to the supreme court which agreed with the district court's decision. so you don't just have one

incident of someone maybe getting on a legal brief or writing something or doing a law review article or writing a paper in college or in high school. this is far from that. this is a long, consistent, systemic -- systematic record of defending discriminatory voter schemes. i say schemes because that's what they are. they are done with the intention to discriminate against people of color. we should be making it easier to vote in our elections, not harder. that's why i have introduced legislation to automatically register eligible voters when they turn 18. that would be so easy. we wouldn't have to have all these fights all the time. we have modern day technology that lets my hometown company of target find a pair of shoes with a skew number in hawaii. there is no reason that we can't go through the records and make sure that we simply register

people who are legal to vote when they turn 18. but it's not just mr. farr's vote in the court -- work in the courts that's concerning. i'm also troubled by his involvement in a political campaign that was accused of engaging in tactics to discourage, once again, african americans from voting. the department of department of justice's civil rights division filed a complaint alleging that the campaign that mr. farr worked on sent out tens of thousands of postcards to heavily african american districts intended to intimidate voters. and according to a former department of justice official who investigated the campaign's alleged voter intimidation actics, -- tactics, mr. farr's answer to the judiciary committee denying his involvement were, quote, contrary to the facts, end quote. finally, i would like to remind my colleagues about the history of this vacancy. the eastern district of north

carolina is 27% african american, and yet the district has never had an african american federal judge. before mr. farr was nominated, two other nominees were submitted to the senate during the previous administration. both of these nominees were african american women. neither of these nominees received a vote. our courts must be dedicated to upholding the law, including safeguarding citizens' constitutional rights to vote. the future of our democracy depends on it. i am opposing this nomination. mr. president, i now turn to another topic. i rise today to call for a forceful response to the murder of jamal khashoggi, and to hold the saudi government accountable at the highest levels. our country is stronger and safer when our core democratic values, values of freedom of the press and the protection of human rights are at the heart of our foreign policy.

it has been almost two months since jamal khashoggi's heinous murder. he was a resident of the united states and a respected journalist with "the washington post." people across our country have been rightfully appalled by his death. all he was doing was going inside the consulate in turkey to try to get his marriage papers so that he could get married to his fiance. that's what was happening. but it turns out he was actually lured there, lured to his death. we were then treated to an incredible coverup by the saudi government with shifting explanations, inadequate cooperation with investigations, and use of authoritarian tactics to silence critics. news reports have made it clear

that the c.i.a. believes with high confidence that the attack was called for at the highest level of the saudi government. and i look forward to hearing from secretaries pompeo and mattis regarding how the administration plans to respond when we have the briefing that has been scheduled for tomorrow. unfortunately, the president has repeatedly dismissed his own intelligence community's assessment of these deeply troubling events. of course, this is not the first time we've heard this. we heard this with russia when every single one of his intelligence heads said clearly that there had been interference in the last elections, that the russians were emboldened to do it again but the president again backed away from that, did not embrace that assessment, and then made policy decisions and statements when he was with vladimir putin that undermine that intelligence community. this appears to be what we are

seeing again. the president's response stands in stark contrast to the founding principles of our democracy. and if the president refuses to defend the values of this country, then this congress must. first, we must hold anyone who ordered and participated, including the crown prince in mr. khashoggi's death responsible. and to do that, the administration must conduct a full, transparent, and a credible investigation. second, while the sanctions that the administration has imposed on 17 saudi officials are an important first step, more must be done. i support senators corker and menendez in calling on the president to report to congress on whether the crown prince is responsible for this murder. this is what they are supposed to do under the global magnitsky

act. if as reports suggest that the c.i.a. has assessed that the crown prince was involved, the sanctions must apply to him, too. no one is above the law. third, i support suspending nuclear energy talks with saudi arabia. it has recently been revealed that the administration has been in extensive talks with saudi arabia about nuclear energy. i appreciative that five of my republican colleagues have come out in pfeiffer of -- in favor of suspending these talks. i will work with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to limit the sale of weapons to the saudi military. this is our leverage. this is our leverage to ensure that this investigation is completed, to ensure that the sanctions are implemented and followed, to ensure that this never happens again, and also to send a message to the rest of the world, with all of these authoritarian regimes who are

watching what happens here, is that you don't do this to journalists from american newspapers, you don't do this to american residents who are simply going back to get their marriage completed. i have previously voted against arms sales to saudi arabia, and i will continue to oppose the sale of certain weapons, particularly offensive weapons, to the kingdom. the saudi armed forces are so reliant on u.s. military equipment that the this argument that they're going to immediately shift to russia and chinese suppliers, that would be extremely difficult. so we should exert the leverage that we have now. there is no question that the united states and saudi arabia have common interests in the region, and that for many, many years saudi arabia has been our partner. but partnership doesn't require sacrificing our values in exchange for promises of arms sales, oil, or other financial

gain. we must be able to cooperate with our partners in the region while at the same time making clear that we will not overlook human rights abuses or the suppression of peaceful dissent. the recent actions of the crown prince, who many hoped would be a forward-looking reformer, have raised serious questions about our relationship with our partner, saudi arabia. from expelling the canadian ambassador because of a tweet to the suppression and murder of political dissidents, to what happened with mr. can a showing geo, to -- can khashoggi, to countless civilian casualties in yemen, the brazen actions of the saudi leadership must be confronted head-on. the ongoing war with in yemen has created one of the world's worst humanitarian catastrophes that will impact the safety, security, and stability of the country for decades to come. all you have to do is look at

the photos of those little children starving to know that this is wrong. while i support the administration's recent decision to suspend u.s. aerial refueling for the saudi coalition, i am concerned that the administration lacks a comprehensive strategy for ending the conflict, including countering iranians influence. i believe it is very important, by the way, that we pus this suspension -- we put this suspension into law. i support a resolution that would have ended u.s. support for the saudi-he had coalition military action in yemen. i supported that when we voted on it last time and voted for the mccain national defense authorization act, which included a provision that prevented the u.s. military from supporting the saudi-led coalition operations unless saudi arabia takes steps to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and he the war in yemen. i also support the comprehensive bipartisan legislation

introduced by my colleagues to ensure effective oversight of the u.s. policy on yemen and demand meaningful accountability for the murder of mr. can khash. provisions of this legislation, including the suspension of weapon sales to saudi arabia, end position of mandatory sanctions on people involved in his death and a refueling of the saudi aircraft engaged in the civil war are very, very important. our response to this murder and the saudi regime's ruthless oppression of dissent will serve as a lesson to other nations that would do the same. i have really appreciated the presiding officer officer, senator flake, standing up for the freedom of the press. mr. khashoggi was a journalist. he was simple politidoing his -- he was simply doing his job, and he was doing it with grace, and he did it all over the world, and he loved his home country.

and look what happened to him. we must demonstrate that it is unacceptable to suppress, toss imprison, and to violently target peaceful opponents of any regime or reporters and that the united states will always defend human rights and hold anyone guilty of violating those rights accountable. strong bipartisan congressional leadership will help us demonstrate our resolve. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our colleague's resolution that will come before the senate, i hope, later this week. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. today, along with several other colleagues from the senate, i wrote to the president on the subject of the possible extension of the new strategic

arms reduction treaty, or new start. several people have been encouraging the president to begin studying whether we should extend new start, which expires in 2021s now, that's a couple years from now, but obviously if one is going to consider renewing something of this import, it's good to be thinking about it early. and in this regard, we offered to the president suggestions of things that he should take into consideration in determining whether to extend new start with russia and whether to begin negotiations with the russians. we suggested three things that he should consider in deciding whether to proceed with these discussions. i'm going to discuss one of them in great detail. but the first two are also important because they represented factors that were

considered by the senate at the time that it ratified the first start agreement. the senate declared in the new start resolution of ratification -- and i'm quoting now -- the united states is committed to proceeding with a robust stockpile stewardship program and to maintaining and modernizing the nuclear weapons production capabilities and capacities that will ensure the safety, reliability, and performance of the united states nuclear arsenal at the new start treaty levels, end quotation. that was our commitment. that's what we said in the resolution of ratification. and president obama had written a letter to the senate confirming that it was his intention as long as he was froze follow this program of work. regrettably, what we posited as an underpinning requirement for participation in new start has not been maintained as the years have gone by.

the infrastructure and weapons capabilities that were pledged at the time that the senate gave its consent to the treaty have been significantly delayed or reduced in scope, and the result of this is a risk that the symmetry that potentially existed between russia and the united states as a result of the new start treaty will be changed and that the united states will be disadvantaged with the continuation of the new start limits. another consideration that we brought to the president's attention was also referred to in the resolution of ratification of the new start treaty, and this is in 2012, by the way. and we said that the president should, and i'm quoting here again, pursue an agreement with the russian federation that would address the disparity between the tactical russian stack piles of the russian federation and the united states

in a verifiable manner. we did that because even at the time that new start was are thified, the -- was ratified, the russians had a 10-1 advantage in tactical weapons over the united states. and the new start treaty didn't do anything about that. it dealt only with strategic weapons. we raised the issue with the russians. we tried to negotiate it as part of the new start treaty. russia was not interested. we went ahead anyway. but what we said washings we really ought to try to address this asymmetry between what the russians have and what we have in terms of tactical nuclear weapons. and here's why that's important -- and by the way, that hasn't been done either, so we thought it was important for the president to bear that in mind, as he charred to do about -- as it considered what to do about talking to the russians about extending the new start treaty. the reason it is important is that the russians with this enormous advantage in tactical nuclear weapons have actually changed their doctrine of war to potentially use those weapons,

to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict with the united states or our nato allies. they believe that this might be beneficial to them under what they -- or has been called, anyway, a doctrine of escalate to de-escalate. what that means is, they start some kind of a conflict with little green men or other kind of hybrid warfare where they can blame it on somebody else. maybe there are some cyberattacks and confuse the issue and in the context of all this confuchs it is very difficult to put the blame anywhere, but the russians are finally identified and an actual military conflict breaks out. well, in order to dissuade the nato or united states from stopping the russian aggression, if that's what's going on here, the russian doctrine says, we

reserve the right here to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield there, which would enable us to win the battle, obviously, and send a signal to the united states that you'd better just let us be; stop there. maybe they'll say, we don't intended to go any further, and so don't escalate this conflict because you can already see that we're willing to use nuclear weapons, and if you escalate it, you could expect russia to again use nuclear weapons. obviously we don't want to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. the reason we possess the nuclear weapons is to try to defer conflict. but our weapons are very large, devastating weapons that were built to be delivered on long-range missiles or bombers to the russian -- or then the soviet heartland, that could do great destruction to soviet

cities and military installations. they weren't designed to offset tactical attacks by another adversary like russia. so we don't have the kind of tactical weapons that russia has. and, as a result, we believe that on this escalation ladder that could occur in a conflict, we're at a disadvantage, which is why we suggest to the president that in order to be sure that russia doesn't ever miscalculate and determine that it's worth the risk to russia to actually conduct an attack, including using nuclear weapons, we need to be sure that they don't miscalculate here and the president should take into account this disparity in nuclear weapon capability between russia and the united states today in determining whether to extend the new start treaty. it may be that in renegotiating this, we need to take all of this into account. these are changed circumstances in doctrine since 2012.

they're not changed circumstances in terms of the asymmetry of weapon possession. and there's a third thing that has changed, although in one respect it hasn't changed, that we also asked the president to consider, and that is the fact that a treaty is obviously only as good as the willingness of the parties to abide by it. and in the case of a new start treaty, we would expect the russians to abide by it as we would expect them to abide by any other treaty. well, it turns out that at the time that the new start treaty was ratified by the u.s. senate, the russians had been in gross violation of another treaty, the i.n.f. treaty. and the government didn't make that clear until after the new start treaty was adopted. the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty is a treaty of several decades long now that prohibits either russia or the united states from developing or

deploying a missile that has a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. now, this is a treaty that only binds russia and the united states. it doesn't bind china, for example, which does possess these weapons. so both russia and the united states would be at a disadvantage in a conflict with china, for example. we're simply asking that the president consider whether or not russia abides by the treaties that it signs, and in that regard whether it has violated the i.n.f. treaty. well, it's a question that's already been answered. the united states government has already confirmed and others have as well that russia has been in violation of the i.n.f. treaty at least since the year 2008. the on-site inspections regime of the i.n.f. treaty terminated in 2001 so it hasn't been particularly easy to verify this. but the state department's 2014 annual compliance report found

that russia was in violation of the i.n.f. treaty, the first thyme that we actual -- the first time that we actually made our knowledge of this public. in 2016, in april , the u.s. government again in more detail revealed russia's violation of the treaty, and it did so very explicitly pointing to the particular type of weapon that the russians have been developing, a ground-launched cruise missile. in november of that year the united states convened a special meeting of the verification mission of the i.m.f. treaty and through this and other engagements with the russian federation we provided detailed information to russia about the nature of the violations of which we were aware. this is important because the modus operandi of the old soviet union was to say we're not in violation of a treaty. if you think we are prove it to us, and then the united states would have to come forth with information that we had gathered through intelligence sources

that would demonstrate to the russians how we found out they were in violation, thus compromising our so-called sources and methods. but we thought this violation was important enough to do that. and, therefore, we informed the russians through the commission of what we understood about their program, information pertaining to the missile, to the launcher, including russia's, even its own internal designation for the mobile launcher chassis and the names of the companies involved in developing and producing both the missile and the launcher. we gave information on the test history of the ground-launched cruise missile program that we were aware of, qlug even coordinates of the test and russia's attempts to obfuscate the nature of the program. we provided all of this information and we also provided knowledge about the range between 500 and 5,500, and the fact that the violating of the treaty with this missile was

actually distinct from two other missiles that russia had developed. i won't give you the descriptions of them, but we have them. we made all of that public. and we even gave, in a subsequent report, in the 2018 annual compliance report, the specific desk nay tor for this missile, the 9-m-729. we continued to raise these issues throughout 2017, 2018, 2019, and in fact it wasn't just the united states. in 2017 december, the north atlantic council urged russia to address serious concerns raised by its missile system, quote, in a substantial and transparent way and engage in a technical dialogue with the united states. end of quote. just a couple of weeks ago, november 12, the nato secretary general stoltenberg stated in a speech, and i quote, the deployment of new russian

missiles is putting this historic treaty in jeopardy. what he was talking about is the new start treaty, and that's the point that i'm making here. he concluded his talk by saying russia now acknowledges the existence of a new missile system. end of quotation. if russia cannot be trusted to comply with treaties and if we have this long history of a violation of the i.m.f. treaty and the president is being asked to consider re-upping the new start treaty, we've urged him to consider this in the context of russia's current violations. clearly at a minimum this would call for additional verification and enforcement with respect to the new start treaty. and it seems to me it calls for more than that. because it is clearly, russia has clearly believed that it is in its country's best interest to blatantly violate the treaty and take whatever the consequences are rather than abide by the treaty.

if it believes that with respect to the development of a new cruise missile, it could very easily conclude the same with respect to violations of the new start treaty, irrespective of any sanctions or other punishment that the united states would mete out. and there's very little, by the way, that you can do to a country that chooses to unilaterally violate a treaty. you can say they shouldn't do it, pull out of the treaty yourself but that doesn't fix the problem, namely, their violation in the first place. we've actually done some things beyond a reasonable doubt to -- we've done some things with regard to the violation. in 2017 the united states imposed economic sanctions on the two russian companies that were involved in the design of this prohibited missile. we began examining a range of military options for the united states, both that were i.m.f. treaty compliant and with what would happen if we were to leave the i.m.f. by the way, the president has unofficially said that in view of the russian violation, the

united states will leave the treaty. he hasn't made that public announcement formally yet, but it is clear that this is what he intends to do. and under the circumstances, one could hardly blame him where the russians have gone ahead to develop a missile which threatens both europe and u.s. interests, and we need to react to that in various ways. one of things we've done is to at least authorize the administration -- congress has, authorized the administration to study what we ought to do in response both in terms of potential active defenses and potential offensive capabilities that would match what the russians have done. in the 2018 national defense authorization act, for example, we authorized $58 million to develop active defenses to counter ground launched missiles of the prohibitive range and counter force and counter veiling capabilities to prevent attacks from these missiles and establish a program of record to

develop an intermediate-range conventional road mobile ground-launched cruise missile of our own. there are additional potential military response options that obviously come to mind. but the point here is that if there are two countries to an agreement and one country deems it important enough to violate the agreement, even to suffer whatever consequences may exist, then the president ought to take this into consideration in deciding to extend yet another nuclear weapon treaty, in this case the new start treaty. there are some other things that i think the united states would want to consider doing that it can only do if it leaves the i.m.f. treaty, and that's why i think the president is wise to in effect give the russians notice this is what we intend to do. russia could still try to come back into compliance, i suppose, by destroying not only the weapon itself, the cruise

missiles that it has already deployed and to destroy the launchers on which these missiles would be launched, because they too would be in violation of the i.m.f. treaty. but they have time to do this. if by announcing in advance his interventions, the president has -- his intentions the president has given us an opportunity to think about our future. it doesn't do any good for defense planners to think about potential weapons or defenses that the united states could develop if there's never a prospect in the case of the offensive weapon of ever actually building it or deploying it. that's a career ender, to be sure. the i.m.f. treaty l currently would prohibit that. so nobody is going to spend any time planning activities that, for the united states that would themselves be a violation, by letting russia know that we are now willing to consider doing that, vladimir putin should understand that the president is serious about potentially withdrawing from the treaty.

hopefully that would give him time to think about the consequences and decide to come into compliance. but it may not. and if it doesn't and he remains out of compliance, then not only could the united states potentially develop weapons of our own to counter the russian violation, but could also begin thinking about what this means in terms of other treaties that we have with russia, changes perhaps that we would want to make in order to ensure that these treaties are worth complying with. a new start treaty only applies to the united states and russia, and what it says is we will both maintain an existing level of nuclear weapons. a little over 15,000 each. the united states had to bring our stockpile down to meet that level. russia did not. so the practical effect of the new start treaty at the time was for the united states to reduce its nuclear weaponry and russia

basically to do nothing. what russia has done in the meantime, however, is to continue to work on the modernization of its strategic missile and nuclear weapon program. it has developed new missiles. it has tested. it has developed new doctrine, as i said, in the potential use of nuclear weapons, and it has a capability for nuclear warhead production that the united states does not have. it's not known today, but we don't have a nuclear weapon warhead production capability. we couldn't do it. we could build one in a lab or two over time. russia has a production line, and it's constantly replacing the warheads that it has with new warheads and developing new missiles, as i said. now all of that is, i think, relevant to the consideration of whether we should stay in the

new start treaty. if we think that russia will comply with the terms, maybe we would conclude again that it's wise to stay in that treaty. this is a little hard to conclude, however, if russia remains in violation of the i.m.f. treaty. so, mr. president, for all these reasons, we thought it important to recite a little bit of the history of the new start treaty, to quote from the resolution of ratification so the president could see what was in our mind, what was in the senate's mind when that treaty was ratified at the end of 2012, and to think about what those factors mean in today's world if the president is, has an intention to think about potentially extending the terms of the new start treaty. again, it doesn't happen until 2021. it is a smart thing to start thinking about it now. but in thinking about it, instead of just blindly considering it's a wonderful thing and we need to move

forward with it without expressing an opinion against extending it, the signers of the letter at least wanted the president to appreciate some of the background and to understand what we thought the intentions were and what we hoped would occur after the new start treaty was adopted and ratified, and how we thought that it would improve the relationship between russia and the united states at the time. if anything, conditions have gotten worse, not better. and as a result, these are factors that the president should take into consideration when determining whether to consider extending the new start treaty. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted so that i might speak. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. for decades powerful interests have been working to take over our courts and tilt the scales of justice in favor of billionaires and giant corporations. president trump has been all in, nominating extreme and partisan judges to the federal judiciary at lightning speed. trump's judges can easily fill a who's who of racial, radical, right-wing, pro-corporate lawyers. but today i want to focus on the nomination of one of the worst of the worst. thomas farr, trump's nominee to serve on the federal district

court for the eastern district of north carolina. thomas farr has made his name as the go-to lawyer for the rich and powerful. when the rent car company avis and its franchisee were sued for discriminating against african american customers, farr defended the franchisee. when pfizer was sued for sex is discrimination and creating a hostile work environment, farr was there once again representing the company. but today just a few weeks after millions of americans went to the polls to exercise the basic right at the core of our democracy, i want to focus on one of the most pressing reasons that my colleagues should vote against the farr nomination. his nomination will not only deepen a playing of voter suppression aimed at stripping americans, particularly people of color and marginalized groups from exercising their lawful right to vote. voter suppression is front and

center on farr's resume, including his work for jesse helms, the former united states senator and shameless big got. farr worked as helms' campaign lawyer while helms led some of the most blatantly politically bigoted historied. his campaign mailed postcards to 125 voters in predominantly black precincts falsely claiming they could be found ineligible to vote based on specific criteria involving their location and length of residence and warning that they could face criminal penalties if they voted. but that was just the beginning. in recent years farr represented the north carolina legislature in a case challenging a discriminatory voting bill that, according to one federal appeals court, targeted african americans with almost surgical precision.

the legislature conducted research into voting practices that helped increase turnout among african american voters, then wrote a bill that essentially eliminated each of those practices. and farr was there to defend the legislature when faith groups, civil rights groups, and the obama administration's justice department challenged the discriminatory law. the law was ultimately found unconstitutional and not reinstated by the supreme court. when north carolina redrew its district loans, farr was there once again to defend the legislature. thomas farr's nomination is particularly troubling given the blizzard of efforts aimed at stopping americans from casting their votes. state after state has passed restrictive voter i.d. laws, limited opportunities to register and erected other

barriers to the democratic process. we saw voter suppression rear its head during this year's mid-term elections, perhaps most vividly in the state of georgia. democratic gubernatorial sought to lift up georgians from all backgrounds and to lead a record turnout vote among african americans, lgbt, and young people. her opponent, the secretary of state bryant kemp, not only refused to recuse himself from overseeing this same election that he happened to be running in, he openly used the power of his office to suppress voters, especially in communities of color. and in north dakota, the republican-controlled legislature passed a voter i.d. law that required perspective voters to present an i.d. with

an address, not just any kind, one that contained a residential street address. this law disadvantaged voters in native american communities which sometimes use post office box addresses or other kinds of residential addresses rather than residential street addresses. what we saw in georgia and north dakota was egregious but it was by no means new. according to the brennan center for justice since 2010, 24 states, most of which are under republican control have implemented measures to make it harder for american citizens to vote. the republican party and president trump are leading this effort with a bull's eye on americans who may not be inclined to vote for them. after the 2016 election, trump falsely claimed that millions of people voted illegally and months after taking office he established a sham voter fraud

commission. trump's justice department has been in lockstep, reversing its position in a case challenging discriminatory voter i.d. laws, requesting that states turn over voter roll information in an apparent move to purge voter rolls and filing a brief in an ohio case arguing that it should be easier for states to purge voters from voter rolls. they know that every time they lock them out of the process they will get challenged in court but they have a plan for them. they have been working at breakneck speed to stack courts with conservative judges whose records show that they have no intention of protecting democracy. why? because the fight for our democracy is a fight for who the government works for. does it work for the rich and the powerful or does it work for all of us? and putting thomas farr on the

bench is a way for politicians to wall off access to the democratic process so they can keep on working for billionaires and giant corporations. the eastern district of north carolina, the district in which farr has been nominated to serve, is 27% african american. yet, the court -- the federal court has not had an african american judge. not one, not ever. now, president obama attempted to change that by nominating two impressive african american women to serve as judges in that district, individuals dedicated to ensuring that every american had an equal opportunity to democracy, but republican senators refused to allow their nominations to move forward, and now republicans want to hand that seat to a man who has made it his job to make it harder for

north carolinians to exercise the right to vote. literacy test, poll taxes, grandfathered clauses of the jim krow era, those may be of a bygone era, but today americans, and particularly americans of color, face new steep barriers to the ballot box. farr has made it his job to ensure that those barriers remain in place. if we truly believe that our courts should defend equal justice under law, then every member of this chamber must vote no on thomas farr. mr. president, i'd like to speak on another matter now, and i ask consent that my speech appear in the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i rise today in support of the

sanders-lee-murphy resolution to stop the united states military involvement in the saudi arabia-led bombing campaign in yemen. i am a cosponsor of the resolution and i thank the senators for their strong leadership on this important issue. the resolution would direct president trump to stop our involvement in saudi-led military operations in yemen unless congress provides specific authorization. it would allow our counterterrorism operations against al qaeda to continue, but it will ensure that the united states is not giving the saudis a blank check. for over three years saudi-led coalition warplanes refueled and armed with missiles by the united states have been bombing yemen to cover iranian-backed measures -- militias. thousands have been killed as a direct result of this dangerous

proxy war between saudi arabia and iran. but when i asked one of the military leaders at an armed services hearing, he said we weren't keeping track of where those u.s. armed and u.s. refueled planes were going and he couldn't tell me what they hit when they got there. mr. president, i am glad that the trump administration has finally come to its senses and halted its refuel support to the saudi-led coalition, but this is too little too late. it is too late to save as many as 85,000 yemen -- yemeny boys and girls under the age of 5 who have starved to death and it is too late to save families has famine spreads throughout yemen. instead of taking action to

address this crisis, the united states continues to sell weapons and provide other support to the saudi-led coalition. the administration continues to cover for saudi actions, the most recent in a rambling incoherent shameful statement from the president himself. i know that iran's actions in yemen are destabilizing. iran is making the conflict worse, and that is unacceptable, but let's be clear, saudi arabia is the one receiving american weapons and support. the ugly truth is that the united states is explicit in the deaths -- complicit in the deaths and devastation in yemen and we need to hold our partners and allies accountable. we need to end u.s. support for this war and we need to end it now. remember who we're dealing with here. the c.i.a. has reportedly confirmed the clear involvement of senior saudi officials up to

and including the crowned prince mohammed bin al salman and the brutal murder of jamal khashoggi last month. that tells us everything we need to know about this so-called ally. it is long overdue for congress to take real action to help put a stop to the humanitarian crisis in yemen. i will vote against any additional armed sales to the saudis while the war in yemen continues. i will stand with my colleagues in both parties as they press for accountability in jamal khashoggi's death, and i will vote for the sanders-lee-murphy legislation today and i urge my colleagues to do the same. the people in yemen are suffering, but we can do something about it. it's time for congress to grow a backbone and act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest

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

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, earlier this month utah lost one of our very finest, former congressman jim hansen, a great leader, an amazing husband and father, and a fantastic, loyal friend. it's my privilege to honor his life today. jim's first and most important rule in getting involved in politics was get involved because you have a cause and not

simply because you want a job. in fact, his own motivation to first run for local office was with the objective of improving the local water system in his small town of farmington, utah, where the water supply was sometime dirty and sometimes even nonexistent. he had lived in farmington, utah for only a little while he was elected to the county board and oversaw the utility system. and that water system allowed that community to grow and to flourish just as it continues to do to this very day. thus began jim hansen's 42 years in public service. after serving on the city council in farming ton for 12 years, jim was elected to the utah house of representatives in 1973. he worked hard and eventually

rose to the position of speaker of the house during his final term. it was then that jim launched his congressional bid for utah's first congressional district, defeating five-term incumbent in 1980. he got right to work representing the citizens of utah, this time at the federal level. among his proudest accomplishments were serving on the base realignment and closure commission and on the house natural resources committee. jim took great pride in helping save the air force base in northern utah from closure. whenever he'd hear a jet roaring overhead at a decibel level loud enough to break the windows, he would tell his children predictably, that's just the sound of freedom. you're lucky to hear and live under that sound every day. a great lover of the outdoors, so too was he proud of saving the environment from environmentalists, as he would say.

jim often sparred with environmentalists about willed necessary issues and championed multiple-use policies for public lands. though he was the sponsor of the 1984 wilderness utah act. ever a staunch republican and always a man of humor, jim hansen delighted in reciting his own version of proverbs 22 verse 6. he'd say train up a child in the way he should go, and when he's old, he will vote republican. but jim was always known for being able to work across the aisle, and he was well respected by his democratic colleagues. he served as the chairman of the house ethics committee during a partisan crisis among house members over the investigation into former speaker newt gingrich, and both parties at the time trusted him to handle any investigations fairly and impartially. for 22 years he tirelessly

served the first district of utah in the u.s. house of representatives, becoming utah's longest-serving congressman. after he announced his retirement in 2002, still at the top of his game, he said in an interview that he wanted to leave behind a legacy of hard work, and indeed jim hansen did. not only was jim hard-working, but he was also immensely generous. he did not keep his success for himself, but for years offered mentorship to anyone seeking to navigate the political waters. i myself was lucky enough to call jim a mentor and a friend. when i first considered running for the senate in 2010, he met with me at length and gave me a whole lot of really helpful advice and encouragement.

even though i was a newcomer with very, very little chance of success, he couldn't have been more generous with his time, with his wisdom, or with his words of support. when i announced my candidacy, he stood by me and offered his full endorsement. and so many others were also blessed by jim's friendship and his loyalty. a lesser known story that illustrates the quality of jim's character involves his longtime friend norm bangator. in 1978 both men had their sights set on the house speaker post but they didn't want to run against each other, so they made a deal that norm would step aside so long as jim agreed to step aside in the future if they were ever interested in running for the same position again. now, jim hoped to become governor of utah. in the 1980's, after jim had been serving in the house of representatives for a few years, there was an opening for

a republican to take back the governorship, and everyone expected jim to make a play for it, except norm wanted to run. so what did jim do? well, he stepped aside, allowing his friend to run for and eventually win that position, the position that norm then held for eight years. that was the caliber of jim hansen's character. he was a man of humility and integrity, who honored his word and always put others before himself. i'd be remiss if i didn't also mention jim's piety in the truest, purest sense of that word. in addition to having a deep loyalty to his country and to his state, he had a deep loyalty to his family and his church. jim married ann bergoyne in 1958, which he considered wisely to be the smartest choice he ever made. their family grew to include

five children and eventually 14 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. grandpa jim was the center of their family, and his love for them animated so much of his life. his grandchildren fondly remember his jokes, stories, and genuine unmistakable zest for life. his granddaughter anna recounted that on jim's 80th birthday, when he insisted on going water skiing, he had waded into the lake wearing his slacik -- slacks and socks with his grandchildren behind him to fish out the tic tac packs floating out of his pockets. that was jim hansen, full of life and spirit until the very end. before his involvement in politics and after he served in the navy during the korean war, jim went on a mission for the church of jesus christ of

latter-day saints for two years. he also served as the bishop of the farmington second ward and president of the davis stake. one of his jobs as bishop was to supervise the construction of the farmington south center where loved ones and dignitaries gathered to honor his life just this past week. it is only fitting that we pay tribute to this honorable man who so faithfully and nobly served god and country throughout his entire life. jim hansen will be sorely missed by his family, friends and utahans and all those whose lives were touched and changed for the better by him. but i have no doubt that his legacy will live on for many years to come. thank you, mr. president.

mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: the u.s. constitution makes unmistakeably clear the fact that in order to declare war, one must go through congress. there are good reasons for this requirement. whenever we go to war, we're making the gravest of moral decisions, decisions that will imperil the lives of those involved in that war, including and especially the brave young men and women who represent us in uniform and who fight to protect our freedom. the costs of war -- and i speak not only of the economic costs, but especially of the deep human costs associated with war -- are such that these decisions should never be made lightly. and it's for this reason that

the founding fathers wisely put this power into the hands of those occupying the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. you cannot declare war without going through congress. sadly, over time some of this power has been neglected, been neglected by the very congress to which the power properly constitutionally belongs. under the constitution, to which every member of this body has sworn an oath to uphold, to protect and defend, it's wrong to go into war without congress directing it, ordering it, declaring it. and yet, sadly, tragically, unconstitutionally, i believe, the united states has been involved as a kobach -- in a is in a co-blink rant in a civil

war in yemen in a coalition against the houthi rebels. what, one might ask, is the u.s. interest in this war? what is it about this particular civil war in yemen? it's important to keep the american people safe? that's a question that's never been fully answered. in fact, it's a question that's never been answered at all by the only branch of government capable constitutionally of making that assessment of answering that question. we have never answered it. it's not just a mere formality that we go through when we require congress to declare war. it's about the debate that that starts, the conversation that occurs among the american people, the accountability that each member of the senate and each member of the house of representatives has to his or her constituents. it's about the fact that we've got to be able and willing to look the american people in the eye, even our own constituents, our own friends and neighbors, even and especially those who are the

parents and loved ones of the men and women who will be at the battle front asked to pay potentially the ultimate price for defending freedom. we have to be willing to do that, and yet we haven't because for the last four years we've been fighting someone else's war without a declaration of war by congress, without an authorization for the use of military force by congress. what then is the remedy? well, there are a number of things that we could do and that we should do. among them are the procedures outlined by and provided in the war powers act. the war powers act gives us the ability to halt our military involvement where congress deems it inappropriate. a few months ago senator sanders and i ran a resolution to do precisely that, availing

ourselves of the benefits of the war powers act. sadly, that measure was narrowly defeated. it was tabled. it was halted from moving forward. it's been filed again. we're going to have an opportunity again very soon, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to vote on that yet again. in the meantime what has changed? well, we've continued to fight this war, still at an unconstitutional posture, still without the american people having been adequately consulted, still without the american people's elected senators and representatives from making a decision to go to war, still without the opportunity for us to look our neighbors, our constituents and the parents and family members and loved ones of our brave men and women in uniform who are asked to fight these battles in the eye and tell them why it is that we're asking for this potential sacrifice of american blood and treasure. we have not done those things.

and since that time we've seen some very unsettling realities unfold within the kingdom of saudi arabia. with credible intelligence regarding the crown prince's involvement in and ordering of the death of mr. khashoggi, we now have not only the eyes of the american people on saudi arabia, more importantly, we have the eyes of people all around the world on the united states of america. it's not just about the death of mr. khashoggi, but mr. khashoggi's death and the way it came about and the way it is alleged and supposed to have been ordered by the crown prince of saudi arabia says something about us. if we proceed undeterred in our fighting of an unconstitutional war on behalf of the kingdom of

saudi arabia. it was not just what the american people think about saudi arabia or about us in washington, it's also about what the rest of the world will think about the united states of america if we turn a blind eye to this and if we continue to fight an undeclared, unauthorized, unconstitutional war that has no apparent connection to the safety of the american people, to the security of the american homeland. this is why, mr. president, i respectfully and with all the urgency i'm capable of communicating implore my colleagues to support this resolution, to support the resolution to get us out of fighting saudi arabia's war in yemen. not our war. not our security. not under our watch.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. it's been a -- i've just been through a long election season with a lot of close races. in states all over the country voters had to contend relentless

attacks on their voting rights. we saw it in ohio where voters were purged from the rolls, we saw it in my mother's home state of georgia where more than 50,000 voter registrations were held up, 70% from black voters. we know exactly whom these laws are aimed at. it's people of color and it is despicable. rather than working to fix this problem and meg it -- making it easier for voters to exercise their fundamental rights, republican leaders in this body and in state legislatures around the country want to put a man on the federal bench who has supported unapologetic racist. this body has done nothing to try to stop voter suppression. state legislatures around the country controlled by republicans in legislature after legislature have, in fact, emboldened people who want to

suppress voting rights. listen to what andrew gillham and stacey abrams, both would be governors elect, if the voters could have heard their voices heard. listen to what they said. when it comes to the trifecta of voter disenfranchisement, restriction of voting rights, thomas farr is sadly one of the most experienced lawyers in the country. when it comes to the trifecta of voter disenfranchisement, he wins the war. he suppressed north carolina's voter suppression laws. the fourth circuit court said that the law targeted black voters with almost surgical precision. he defended jesse helms. it was a lawsuit where jesse helms' campaign sent 125,000 postcards to african american communities telling them they

would be arrested for voter fraud at their polling place. imagine the terror in many cases in the eyes of those voters -- those african american voters that saw those postcards telling them they could be arrested for voter fraud at their polling places. of course many of them would not vote, which is exactly what jesse helms and thomas farr wanted to -- wanted to happen. to put this man as a judge is a disgrace. president obama elected two african american women to serve on this court. this body, under the leadership of the gentleman down the hall, under the republican leader mcconnell, they did not get a hearing. now they want to put this man on the bench after a choice of over a decade of two african american, they wanted to put a moon the bench who led with voter suppression.

they want to put that kind of judge in that seat. it's a throwback to the worst moments of our history. this body shouldn't stand for it. mr. president, i would like to put in a different part of the record, separate the following remarks in a different part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. ten years ago, i was -- i was in largetown ohio, at the g.m. plant watching the first chevy cruz come off the line in lordstown, ohio, a plant that had been there decades already. two years ago i was at the g.m. lordstown plant for its 50th anniversary. i saw the pride the community takes in that plant. g.m. estimated 10,000 people turned out to watch the about a raid. -- parade. the line to tour the plant stretched down the streets. it's what this means to the communities they serve. when the news broke lait sunday

night, early monday morning that general motors is closing this plant and laying off up to 15,000 workers in ohio and around the country, one reporter tweeted, it was all hands on deck day with just about everyone in the newsroom dropping everything to cover the g.m. lordstown story. those reporters, not enemies of the people, these reporters who care about their community, don't make a lot of money are willing to comfort the afflicted, not millimeters enemies of the -- not enemies of the people. they understood what the job losses would mean not just to the workers but to the community. while people's lives were being upended in the community while parents were having painful conversations around kitchen tables, local businesses were nervously looking at their balance sheets. you know what happened? wall street traders were celebrating. as the announcement of workers

happened, the stock prices went up. wall street and their cronies in washington don't value workers and they don't understand the dignity of work. they don't look at workers as vital to a company's success. they view the american worker as nothing more than a cost to be minimized. and they reward companies -- wall street rewards companies when they lay off workers. they reward companies when the workers' pay is cut or the benefits are scaled back, they reward -- they reward -- wall street rewards companies when the workers get hurt. of course we expect companies to always try to maximize profits, but we weren't elected in this body to serve corporations. we were elected to stand up for the americans we serve, to stand up for the small business owners, in this broken business model is why we need a trade and tax policy that invests in american workers. instead this crowed in

washington is only making it worse. earlier this summer in the -- in the very same day that g.m. lordstown laid off the second shift in the mahoney value, we got -- valley, we got word that they will rebuild in mexico. 1,500 workers lost their job the same day that g.m. announced they were building a plant in mexico. how stupid do we have to be to think there is not a connection there. that decision was no coincidence. the tax bill that this congress, that almost every single republican vote and every single democrat voted against, this tax bill that this congress passed, this president signed provides a 50% off coupon for every company that moves overseas. for instance, american companies right now, chevy cruz made in youngstown, oh, general motors pays 2 #% corporate -- 21%

corporate tax rate. and mexico pays a 10.5% tax rate. if you work in the united states, you pay 21%, if you go overseas, you get 50% off on your taxes. why you know -- you know why? because this congress and president trump signed a will to outsource jobs. it didn't have to be that way. the patriot corporation act which i handed to the president in the president's cabinet room a year and a half ago would have said this, if you pay your workers well, if you provide health care and retirement for your workers, if you make your product in the united states of america, you get a lower trait. i hand -- tax rate. i handed a copy of that to the president. he said he liked it. you know what happened? that bill that could have been the patriot corporation act, that could have been the taxpayer's bill of rights, that -- when companies abuse their workers, they pay a fee, instead that bill made its way

to the majority leader's office and you know what happened. the special interest went to work. and then you know what happened? they created a 50% off coupon so those companies that moved to mexico or anywhere else would get a tax cut. who suffers the consequences? american workers. we need to stand up for the people we serve and fix this. after g.m. ended its second shift, i went to the c.e.o. and demanded answers. she'd said retooling the plant to go from the cruz to the chevy blazer would cost too much. it was too expensive. first of all, they had just taken their huge tax cut, they could have invested in workers they -- instead they gave it to executives, who make 300 times more than the worker at g.m. plant makes. we called it the american cars

american jobs act, two simple parts. first, customers who buy cars that are ahead in the united states gets dz 3,500 -- $3,500 off at the dealership. it would apply under our definition, made in america, to hundreds of cars, trucks, s.u.v.'s, including all passenger vehicles, including the jeep cherokee. all passenger vehicles assembled in ohio. second, the number of jobs that were cut on the day that the g.o.p. pill passed, they lose their -- bill passed, they lose their tax break. if you choose to send jobs overseas, you lose that coupon. if you keep jobs in the u.s., you keep your discounted rate. remember back in july, i believe, of 2017, donald trump, president of the united states, was in youngstown. he said to them never again will we sacrifice ohio jobs to enrich

other countries. he said don't sell your homes, we'll bring the jobs back and knock the old plants and build new plants and bring all these jobs back. he said we'll never again sacrifice ohio jobs, that's what his tax bill did. people trusted him in the mahoney valley. he won areas that democrats used to win. they put faith in him and what did trump do, he gave these companies huge tax breaks. it is part of the president's phony populism. he puts one group against another to distract from the fact that this white house looks like a retreat for companies, except for days it looks like a retreat for gun lobby executives. he says he's for working people and passes tax cuts for companies sending their jobs overseas. he said campaigning in ohio, if

if i'm elected, you will not lose a plant. plants will come into this country. i promise you that. if the president of the united states meant what he said, if he said you're not going to lose plants and companies moved overseas will come back to toledo and to dayton, then, mr. president, what you need to do is support the american cars, american jobs act. let's end this tax break, inincentive for companies to shut down production in ohio and move overseas. let's end the tax cut for companies to move jobs overseas if you love this country you fight for the people who make it work. mr. president, let's do that and pass the american car, american jobs act. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to express my strong support for the bipartisan resolution 54 that is

before us today, the strong bipartisan support that we're seeing on the floor most recently from my colleague senator lee of utah shows how necessary and important this resolution is to end united states complicity in the murderous war waged by saudi arabia in yemen. the united states is explicit because -- complicit because we're providing fuel and intelligence and other support that is only increasing the barbaric power of the saudis in that civil war. murderous activities that are taking a toll on civilians. the blood is on our hands if we continue to support the saudis

in this brutal effort. the resolution before us is carefully crafted to preserve our national security and our national interest while at the same time removing our involvement from the saudi war crimes. there seems to be no other word for what we're seeing the saudis do. and the arguments made by the administration for our support and participation carry to weight. we should never compromise our national values for the sake of arms sales. in fact, the arms contracts are a pittance, or fraction of what the administration claims. so i'm proud to support this measure. it will do too little and too late what should have been done

long ago, renounce our moral and legal responsibility as well as our practical involvement for the murderous and brutal saudi attacks on civilians and others in yemen. but i rise today also on a less bipartisan issue to speak out against the concerted campaign by the administration and its allies to dramatically reshape our judiciary, to fill the courts with partisans and idealogues. president trump has made no secret of his frustration at judges nominated by both republicans and democrats who choose to uphold the rule of law as chief justice roberts has said, quote, do equal right to those appearing before them. end quote. and he is wrong to talk about

obama judges or bush judges. in fact, the chief justice is absolutely right, that when a person puts on the robe, they are no longer a judge nominated by any president. they are a judge doing the right thing, hopefully, from the bench in a completely bipartisan, nonpartisan way. yet this administration has repeatedly put forward extreme nominees who will seek to undo decades of critically important progress in recognizing and protecting reproductive rights, lgbtq right, voter right, workers' rights, environmental protections and more. in fact, we're scheduled to vote on a nominee for the eastern district of north carolina, thomas farr, who exemplifies this administration's efforts to remake the judiciary. he'd been nominated for a

judgeship that's been open for years. in fact, it's the longest open judicial vacancy in the country. in 2013 president obama nominated assistant united states attorney jennifer maye parker to fill the seat. senator hagan returned a blue ship but senator burr, despite formally recommending maye parker to the white house for the position, declined to return his blue slip. now, at that time the senate still adhered to its long-standing practice of respecting blue slips and deferring to home state senators. so the nomination was never considered. to accommodate senator burr's obstruction, senator obama nominated practice tricia timmons goodson to fill the vacancy on the district court in 2016 neither senators burr nor tillis returned blue slips on

her nomination. now, senator burr had the right and i may have misspoken when i referred to obstruction when he declined to return that blue slip. would that right were still observed in this body. he had that right. he exercised it. but now president trump has nominated thomas farr, an attorney whose career is defined by efforts to dilute african american votes and suppress them through redistricting and to make it more difficult for african americans to vote in the first place. mr. farr has worked to suppress minority votes since at least the early 1990's. the department of justice hurd george h.w. bush alleged far engaged in acts of voter

intimidation. in fact, farr served as legal counsel to senator jesse helms. the department department of justice alleged that senator helms' campaign sent out tens of thousands of postcards to black communities that falsely told voters they could be found invellible to vote based on -- ineligible to vote based on various conditions. the justice department described this campaign as, quote, intended to intimidate thousands of african american residents and discourage them from voting in the 1990 senate campaign. since then farr has become an attorney of choice for north carolina's republican politician when they sought to gerrymander and suppress voter effort. notably and most recently he successfully represented the north carolina legislature in

cooper v. harris. that case involved two districts that were withdrawn -- redrawn, i should say, after the 2010 census as majority black districts by removing african american voters from other predominantly white districts. the redrawn districts effectively diluted the voting power of americans by concentrating the black population in a smaller number of districts that already elected candidates who received strong support from african american voters. the supreme court rejected farr's defense of the redrawn districts and found that the legislature had engaged in an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. that ruling was remarkable, absolutely exceptional in supreme court jurisdiction indicating the blatant and

flagrant disregard for constitutional law in that gerrymandering. he also defended the north carolina legislature in a challenge to its restrictive voter i.d. law. the day after the supreme court decision in shelby county v. holder, struck down the preclearance requirements of section 5 in the voting rights act. the republicans in the north carolina legislature requested data regarding the racial breakdown of the usage of voting access tools. the first -- the fourth circuit court of appeals found that the law discriminated against african american voters, quote, with surgical -- with almost surgical precision. end quote. the court said, quote, this sequence of events, the general assembly's eagerness to at the historic moment of shelby county's issuance rushed through the legislative process the most

restrictive voting law north carolina has seen since the era of jim crowe that speaks a certain purpose. end quote. thomas farr argued in favor of those legislative districts that restricted representation of african american voters in their state and federal governments. president trump has chosen this man to serve as a judge. i cannot vote for him. i hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this nominee. his nomination alone speaks volumes about the intentions of this administration. this nominee is not suited to the vital task that judge, particularly -- that judges, particularly federal district court judges are empowered to carry out.

this nominee is not fit for this job. i will vote no, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise to strongly oppose the nomination of thomas farr to the federal bench, and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against him. the right to vote is sacred and a precious human right, but it has been under attack, and that is unconscionable and wrong. this nominee represents yet another threat to the basic premise of one person, one vote because throughout his career, he has worked to make it harder for black americans to vote. that is not who we are as a country, and this nominee does not deserve the privilege of a

lifetime appointment on the federal bench. over and over again on the most serious and consequential questions related to our sacred right to vote, mr. farr has been on the wrong side of the issue. listen to his record. mr. farr defended in court a gerrymandererred congressional -- gerrymandered map that was so blatantly racist that the federal appeals judge ordered it to be withdrawn and redrawn. mr. farr defended in court state laws that were so obviously designed to suppress the black vote that a federal court of appeals ordered them to be struck down. and he wasn't just a cheerleader for these discriminatory laws. he was the actual architect. he was defender in court. he did everything he could to keep them in place. that's why millions of americans all over the country, including

so many men and women of color, the naacp, the congress a.m. r -- the congressional black caucus are so outraged by this nomination and they are right to be so. because this nomination is an insult. this seat is the longest judicial vacancy in the country, but it did not have to be that way. just a few years ago a highly qualified nominee was picked to fill the seat. but she didn't even have a hearing let alone a vote. so then another highly qualified nominee was picked to fill the seat and she didn't receive a hearing either. or a basic vote. and now we have another nominee for the same exact seat, but this time my colleagues are practically tripping over themselves to rush him through the senate at full speed, to push him across the finish line before the end of the year, and to hand him a lifetime appointment to the court.

i urge my colleagues reject this bad choice and let's find someone better who isn't so obviously biased on questions related to race. because if his record of discrimination and bias alone isn't enough to convince you, then think about this. we cannot ignore the fact that this nomination is coming at a moment when so many black americans are still experiencing blatant and racist disenfranchisement every time they try to exercise their constitutional right to vote. just look at the voter suppression that happened in florida and georgia this month in their elections for governor. we've already seen terrible decisions from the federal bench that have rolled back voting rights, like when the supreme court gutted the voting rights act. this body has done nothing to address this egregious decision, and we should not be complicit in further eroding this precious right.

and now we want to confirm another man to the federal judiciary who has spent his entire legal career fighting to make it harder for black americans to vote. what kind of awful message are we sending to our country? mr. president, we must reject this nominee. we must stand up to discrimination and racism in all its forms, not reinforce them, not encourage them. i urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote no. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise today as i have many times before to stand up for a free and independent ukraine. i come to the floor to unambiguously call out and

condemn the russian government's escalation of aggression and the increasingly dangerous situation in ukraine. over the weekend, russian forces sharply escalated their campaign in ukraine by attacking and seizing three ukrainian vessels with 23 crew members and temporarily shutting down commercial shipping through the strait. ukrainian sailors were injured and required medical attention. this was an outrageous violation of ukraine's sovereignty, so i want to say this clearly and unequivocally. the kremlin must immediately return the vessels and sailors to ukraine. the kremlin must not obstruct the free passage of shipping to the strait moving forward and we must take the kremlin's actions seriously in word and in deed. for the russian government's

actions on sunday marked a sharp escalation in putin's ongoing assault on the international rules-based order. this time on the freedom of navigation on the high seas. indeed, this was an act of war. and sunday's attack comes in the context of ongoing russian aggression in eastern ukraine for the past four years. for the past four years, ukrainian forces have endured an unrelenting assault rendering the them economically ungovernable. more than a million and a half misplaced people have lived lives of uncertainty. not sure when and if they'll ever be able to return home. for the past four years ukraine has struggled to rebuild its economy and reform its institutions while fighting a hot war and suffering regular

casualties. for the past four years ukraine has been on the front lines of a struggle against the kremlin's vision of a world that is not guided by democratic values, not buttressed by fundamental freedoms, not governed by a rules-based international order, but instead ruled by mr. putin and a corrupt cabal of ole garkians. his escalation marks an even more insidious term. apparently the kremlin no longer seeks to hide behind lies of little green men or russian-backed separatists. the russian government, with no pretense or obfuscation, fully admitted to directly firing on ukrainian forces and seizing their ships. beyond the military component, this attack tells us that putin is ramping up an economic war on ukraine.

since the spring, russian vessels have blocked ukrainian ships from sailing through the strait, costing ukraine millions in lost revenue from exports and blocking exports critical to the ukrainian economy. this weekend, moscow opened up a new front in the war, one that could ultimately do the most damage to ukraine's viability as a state. russia's actions show that its leaders are emboldened, unchastened and on the march, clearly our response to russian efforts to undermine our security, our fundamental democratic values, our institutions, and the rule-based international order has thus far been inadequate. certainly, the state and defense department have taken some steps to counter russian aggression. ambassador kirk volcker who has led efforts to fully implement the minsk agreements has shown

clear-eyed leadership in calling out the kremlin and holding putin to account. our assistant secretary of state for europe, wes mitchell, has done much of the same. secretary jim mattis has consistently supported a strong military presence in europe to counter russian aggression. nikki haley, our u.n. ambassador, issued the first statement for the administration following sunday's attack and was appropriately firm. come to think of it, i can't think of any player within the trump administration who is soft on russia, except one, of cours. just yesterday, when asked by reporters about russia's escalation in ukraine, president trump said, quote, we don't like what's happening either way. in other words, he once again fell back on the same old both sides excuse he keeps in his back pocket whenever asked about

russia's bad behavior. this is not the kind of clear and unequivocal denouncement the people of ukraine or the world needs to hear from an american president at a moment in which the international democratic order is under attack. but unfortunately, it's what we have come to expect from president trump who repeatedly subverts his own administration's positions and efforts on russia. the work of mattis, volcker, mitchell, haley, and countless others have been repeatedly undermined by a president who has abandoned america's interests and betrayed our core principles time and time again. from the fiasco in helsinki to an exchange in paris just weeks ago when he greeted putin with a giant smile on his face. the president has had many opportunities to restore confidence to the american people and reclaim america's global leadership on russia

policies. while he has repeatedly failed to do so, yet another opportunity lies before him this week at the g-20 summit in buenos aires where he is scheduled to meet with putin. if ever there was a time whr this president to defend our country, our principles, and those of our allies, this would be it. if ever there was an opportunity for american leadership, this would be it. if ever there was a time for president trump to find his spine on russia, this would be it. in the meantime, president trump must use this week's opportunity in buenos aires to send a clear message to putin that we will not tolerate its increasingly aggressive behavior in ukraine. here's what i believe the president must do. first, the united states needs to increase assistance to our

friends in ukraine in the face of continued aggression now in the kerch strait. the trump administration must immediately increase security assistance to ukraine, including the provision of lethal maritime equipment and weapons. in addition, we must bolster intelligence sharing with kiev and assistance ukraine's efforts to improve its maritime domain awareness. second, nato has a critical role and should consider increasing exercises and its presence in the black sea. the u.s. has maintained an active presence in the south china sea to protect shipping lanes. nato should move quickly to establish such a presence in the black sea. third, the u.s. should increase sanctions pressure on russia immediately. this is long overdue. the president is required to impose sanctions on russia under the capsa law. several mandatory provisions of the law remain ignored.

i would offer that now would be a good time to follow the law, but imposing sanctions alone does not constitute a real strategy. fourth, sunday's events present an important opportunity for american engagement with like-minded allies across europe. now is the time for serious diplomacy and coalition building in the face of this threat. our european friends spoke out in full opposition to russia's attack on sunday. now let's see if we can work together to turn words into action and deter such kremlin attacks in the future. finally, as the situation in ukraine grows more perilous, we in the united states senate must also live up to our national security responsibilities. following the president's failures in helsinki, senator graham and i, along with others, introduced the defending america's security from kremlin aggression act, known as daskaa.

this legislation is more than in other sanctions bills. it charts a comprehensive way forward for how the united states can better defend its interests and those of our close allies against putin's unrelenting assault on our values, security, economic interests, and the rules-based international order. after months of senate hearings on the legislation, we have nothing to show for it as both the senate foreign relations and banking committees have refused to mark up new legislation to respond to the kremlin threat, refused. what are we waiting for? what are we waiting for? the alarm bells are ringing, and yet the senate republican leadership is so sound asleep. they are asleep as trump concedes more ground to the kremlin and ukraine in cyberspace, acheap while russian

ships ram ukrainian vessels in international waters and injure brave ukrainian sailors. asleep while vladimir putin pounds away at our points of vulnerability. the american people deserve a vote on daskaa before, before we leave for the holidays. anything less would be a mark of shameful abdication of our responsibility to protect and defend our national interests. i hope this chamber will wake up to this growing threat. perhaps sunday's attack will be a ringing alarm clock that compels this body and the international community to act. and finally, the american people cannot afford a weak performance by president trump at the g-20 summit like we saw in helsinki. cannot afford such a performance. president trump, this is your opportunity to finally show

american leadership in defense of our principles and our close allies across europe. the time is now. it's critical. and we await to see that, in fact, the president can rise to the moment. now, finally, mr. president, on another matter, i want to address breaking news of the day on a related matter. yesterday, we learned from an exclusive report in "the guardian" that former trump campaign chairman paul manafort repeatedly held talks with wikileaks founder julian assange in the ecuadorian embassy in london. these revelations, reported publicly in "the guardian," if true, raise serious new questions about the trump campaign's possible relationship with wikileaks, including the time to release the pac e-mails orchestrated to inflict maximum damage on hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.

according to the published report, man a fort visited -- manafort visited in 2015 and then again in 2016 just in time for trump to name him the r.n.c. convention manager. sources say his meetings with assange may have been purposefully kept off the embassy's official visitor log. it is essential that equador's current government publicly and swiftly confirm whether former ecuadorian president rafael correda and his administration allowed these meetings to take place. and given that secretary pompeo met with foreign minister valentice yesterday morning before these reports came out, the state department and the intelligence community muse immediately brief on the relationship with mr. assange as well as the ecuadorian government's role in any meetings. this is critical. this is critical for us to know.

and i hope it won't take other actions to get clarity. i am already concerned that tomorrow we're having an all-members briefing on what happened with saudi arabia and the murder of mr. khashoggi, and there won't be anybody from the intelligence community there. where is gina haspell, the head of the c.i.a. she went and listened to the tapes. her agency is reported to have come up with conclusions that maya, the crown prince knew and was involved. yet we're going to have a briefing without anybody from the intelligence community there. it's an affront to the senate that has responsibilities, oversight and otherwise, to understand what is the appropriate action of this body as it relates to u.s. foreign policy and thisical eye. but we're not going to have anybody from the intelligence community there. that's the ultimate cover-up.

so i want to know about what wht happened, whether or not this "guardian" report is true. i want to know from the intelligence community what is their determination. i don't want to hear it characterized by someone else. i want to hear it directly from them. only then can we actually act in a way that is both concerted and with the knowledge necessary to make the informed decisions on critical u.s. foreign policy. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call quorum call:

the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative business with senators permitted to speak up

to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany s. 2074. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate, s. 2074, compiled -- entitled an act for conveyance for certain federal property around the jamestown reservoir do pass with an amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur on the house amendment and i ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair to lay before the senate the message to accompany s. 440. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a message from the house.

the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate, s. 440, entitled an act to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain federal profty around the -- property around the dickenson reservoir pass with an amendment. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to, that 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 proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 650, h.r. 5317. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 650, h.r. 5317, an act to repeal section 2141 of the revised statutes and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the indian affairs committee be discharged and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1074. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1074, an act to repeal the act entitled an act to confer jurisdiction on the state of iowa over offenses committed by or against indians on the sack and fox indian reservation. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent 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 veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3946, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3946, an act to name the department of veterans' affairs community-based outpatient clinic in states borough, georgia, the ray veterans hendricks clinic. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the bill. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the time. amendment at the desk be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the help committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 674. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 674, recognizing the month of october 2018 as national principles month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 424, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 424, honoring the 25th anniversary of the national guard youth challenge program. the presiding officer: is there objection to the proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the baldwin amendment to the preapplicable be agreed to, preamble be agreed to 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 unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 3661, introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3661, a bill to provide for a program of the department of defense to commemorate the 75th anniversary of world war ii. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure. without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1918 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1918, an act to oppose loans at international financial institutions for the government of nicaragua, and so forth and

for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the menendez substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to and the bill as amended be read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill as amended. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the postcloture time on the kelley nomination expire at 12:15 on wednesday, november 28. further, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: so now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, november 28. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be 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 proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the kelley nomination, with the time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. finally, that the senate recess from 11:00 a.m. until noon tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator booker. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. booker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you. there is no quorum call? the presiding officer: there is not. mr. booker: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the nomination of thomas farr to serve as district judge for the eastern district of the great state of north carolina. over the past year, i have

joined many of my colleagues, colleagues here in the senate. i have seen colleagues in the house and really people from all across the country have been speaking out about mr. farr's troubling record. we see many district court judges come before the united states senate, but none have triggered this kind of trouble, this kind of frustration, this kind of outcry. we have even an outpouring of advocacy and activism now coming around this nomination. this nomination and the energy and advocacy of americans speaking out against it is frail not about politics. it's not -- is frankly not about politics. it's not about partisanship. it's about something deeper than just left or right. this is about right or wrong. we are a mitigation who i believe have so much more in common than we have apart. the lines that divide us are nowhere near as strong as the ties that bind us.

and what binds us? we are bound together, not because of many of the more obvious historically held things that hold people together. it's not our language or our religion or our race that holds this nation and her people together. we are bound to one another because of the ideals we share. we say them in our anthem. we say them in our salute and our pledge. we know that we are a nation of principles and ideals. and some of the most fundamental of those principles, the most sacrosanct of those ideals we share are about and surrounding that right to vote. every american has the right to vote. when you enter that ballot box, whether you are the richest person in this country or a working class person from jersey, you are equal in that ballot box. you all have that right to vote.

that's what makes this a great republic. that is what makes us to be a great democracy. your vote will be equally counted and treated equally under the law. throughout our history, greater americans have fought to secure these fundamental rights for us. from seneca falls to the edmund pettis bridge, americans have stood and fought and marched and sweat and bled for this right to vote for suffrage for universal voting rights. there have been debates on this floor advancing legislation that have secured those rights amongst men and women, further advancing that truth about our country that we will be a democracy where every vote will be counted, where every person treated equally in their right to vote. americans from all backgrounds and multiracial, multi-ethnic

coalitions struggle together for these rights, fought together to make them real. but this nomination now stands in direct contrast to that legacy of common sacrifice and common struggle, of that legacy for that push for equality. the facts here in this nomination are clear, and they again have nothing to do with partisanship but do indicate a very clear pattern of time and time again that mr. farr has worked to advance a very specific, a very antidemocratic agenda, one aim that turns back the clock in eroding very critical voting rights. we know for a fact that in 1984, mr. farr managed the so-called ballot security program for the reelection campaign of senator jesse helms that targeted and attempted to suppress the votes

of black north carolinians. we know that in 1990, mr. farr participated in a so-called ballot security meeting just days before the helms' campaign infamously, notoriously sent tens of thousands of postcards targeting black north carolinian voters, suggesting that they were not only not eligible to vote but threatened criminal prosecution if they did. this is not left or right. republicans and democrats criticized, decried that method of voter suppression. now, mr. farr has repeatedly claimed that he had no knowledge of the mailing until he was contacted after the fact for legal advice, but i am deeply troubled that despite given multiple opportunities, mr. farr has failed to be completely honest with this senate -- with the senate about his record. when senator feinstein from

california asked mr. farr did you ever participate in any meetings in which the postcards were discussed before they were sent, he replied unequivocally and simply no. but according to a breaking story published by "the washington post" within this last hour, we know that, and i quote, during the meeting, participants also reviewed the helms' campaign 1984 ballot security effort farr had coordinated with an eye toward the activities that should be undermain in -- should be undertaken in 1990. the evidence that just came out from the "washington post" again casts a shadow over the truthfulness and the honesty of mr. farr about his participation in that meeting and the voter suppression efforts.

and again, mr. farr misrepresented the context of this meeting in his responses to both me in december of 2017 and january of this year. and finally, we also know that in 2016, mr. farr lost one of his biggest cases defending north carolina's notorious and discriminatory voter i.d. law, a law that he helped write because the court found that it would target black north carolinians -- and i quote -- with almost surgical precision. target those north carolinians to be disenfranchised from their right to vote. time and time again, mr. farr has worked to advance an agenda aimed at turning back the clock on our democratic advancements, about our common ideals, about the commonsense fairness that in this country every vote counts,

every person has the right to vote. time and time again in this process, mr. farr has offered misleading and incomplete testimony regarding his record and his work. this is a body that has shown in its history a capability to work together in a bipartisan way to protect the right to vote. this body is the one that passed one of the most important pieces of legislation in our history, the voting rights act of 1965. but the weight of history isn't just on this body in this moment because it still weighs heavily on so many voters in north carolina who remember receiving one of those postcards from jesse helms in 1984 at the direction of mr. farr and others and who may have received another postcard from the helms

campaign in 1990 threatening federal prosecution if they exercise their right to vote. it's those people in the eastern district right now that feel the weight, the pushback on historical advancements who are watching this body now. those voters that got those postcards. they didn't get them, not because the helms campaign or mr. farr saw value in their vote. they received them because the helms campaign and mr. farr were trying to suppress it. that is antidemocratic. that is an affront to our history. confirming the person responsible for managing and defending those tactics, who was involved in them, who has misrepresented that fact pattern to this body, it wouldn't just be a disservice to north carolinians. it wouldn't just be a disservice to those americans who received

those postcards. it would be a betrayal of the work of generations of americans from all backgrounds, all races, all religions, multitude of parties, all of those americans who joined in that common pursuit in this country to stand up for the right to vote. this is not right or left. this is about whether we will move forward or back, and forward we have moved. countless generations, people from different backgrounds standing together, working together, sweating together, bleeding together, marching together, marching feet in the suffrage movement, marching feet in the voting rights movement, marching feet across this country, from the protesters like alice paul marching in front of the white house to protesters marching through the south, through alabama, across the edmund pettis bridge. every generation marching forward. this nomination now represents a

moment in history, not right or left, but will we continue to march forward? if this body confirms judge farr, it will not be forward marching. it will be a step backwards in the wrong direction. against the historical tide and currents that have gotten us to this wonderful moment today. let us again stand together in a bipartisan way and say we will not be turned around. we will not go backward. that we believe when it comes to the sacrosanct rights of this nation, that we always will fight to make sure that the right to vote is secured, and we have the truth of this country go marching on. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow thank you fo.

more of your calls in just a fo. moment. the president is tweeting this morning. about half an hour ago, the president saying polls are open in mississippi. hyde-smith in mississippi. go out and vote. that was his message. we turn to the