year in base pay. that is at a level that is below the poverty level. so coast guard members who are currently being deployed overseas -- that is, they could be in a combat zone -- and these members are not receiving pay. so i hope that our colleagues will take into consideration this issue with our coast guard families. they are working hard to provide great care for us throughout our country and overseas. and when i think about the fact that a coast guard member could be deployed overseas in an area that had seen combat, an area that is an unstable region of the world, and they're not even receiving the child care subsidy and support to make sure that their families are taken care of while they're gone taking care of us is just wrong. so i come here to join my colleagues who were here earlier today on the floor giving examples of americans throughout

the united states who are working hard for us. it is time we work to get them their paycheck and continue to support them so they can support us. i know my colleague from connecticut is here and would like to speak as well. and i thank him for allowing me to fit in this time to talk on behalf of the coast guard families. i hope that the commandant's letter can now be seen as an example of why we need to act. we need to act to give these coast guard families their pay and to make sure that we are addressing the shutdown and reopening government. i thank the president. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm honored to follow the senator from -- our neighbor

across the country. we share a common interest and commitment to one of the great military services in this country, the united states coast guard. connecticut is proud to be home of the coast guard academy and numerous active duty serving coast guard men and women. not only are we proud of them, but we are deeply mindful of the debt we owe them. it's a debt that immeasurable in dollars and cents. it is a debt that we owe them for the safety and security they provide this country and the blood they have shed in defense of the country. and so failing to pay them is a moral failure. that's why i'm proud to be joining the senator from washington as well as senator thune in a measure to provide payment for the coast guard, and i hope that we will meet this

obligation as soon as possible. we also have an obligation to other federal workers because they are suffering and sacrificing during this shutdown now 26 days long. and one of them among the workers i met just last monday is adrian pallotte. he has worked as a behavior officer for more than a decade. he is also one of the t.s.a. workers at bradley not receiving pay. he said to me, quote, we have no income right now. we are bleeding money, just day-to-day things. food. i still have to pay the bills. the electric company, the cell phone company. they don't care. they are brutal. to feel like we are poker chips or leverage is very, very infuriating. we are people.

we have lives, not just a number to throw around. i want the government to reopen. nothing i say here expresses more eloquently and powerfully the obligation that we are failing to meet. i will be proposing legislation to provide workers like adrian unemployment benefit compensation. states like connecticut now must seek approval from the department of labor of the united states to provide unemployment compensation for workers who are on the job but unpaid. workers who are furloughed and unpaid can receive that compensation. the folks showing up to work, keeping us safe in the sky, assuring that our security is met at the t.s.a. lines are

unpaid, and they are uncompensated out of the state workers' compensation system, and they should be. that's why i will propose legislation for fundamental fairness and necessary benefits for workers like adrian and his partner sara small, who has been a t.s.a. officer for over 11 years. she currently works part time at bradley as a t.s.a. officer, and she is in nursing school. she said to me, quote, it's more nerve-racking because of the fact that if this shutdown lasts any longer, one of us is going to have to find something. they're just two examples of thousands across the country. my colleagues, every one of you has an adrian pallotte or a sara small or a coast guard service man or woman or someone like them who are working without

unemployment compensation, having to pay bills, mortgages, put food on the table. they're unable to do it because the government is shut down. let us reopen the government. let us meet our obligation. let us do our job. and the man down the street on navy in the white house ought to be doing his job, too. in the meantime, let's help them meet their bills and save them from gaps, much as we do service members and their relief fund, another legislative measure that i will be advocating and advancing. we owe it to them. we owe it to the country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, i am pleased to be joined today on

the floor by senators blunt, senators wicker, and senator fischer to speak about the importance of protecting and celebrating life. this friday, americans from every state in our nation, from our tiny rural towns to our bustling urban cities will gather in our nation's capital to participate in the 46th annual march for life. each year, i'm amazed and inspired by the immeasurable strength, compassion, and support demonstrated by the pro-life community as hundreds of thousands of its members come to washington, d.c., and tirelessly work to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

the unborn. as members of the senate values action team, throughout the year, we are blessed with the opportunity to work with and hear from so many who are committed to protecting human life at all stages. i thank my colleagues for sharing this message of life today, and i at this time would like to yield to the senator from missouri. senator. mr. blunt: well, i want to thank senator ernst for yielding and for her leadership in these issues. you know, all of us hear today are here at a time when thousands of people from around the country, including hundreds from missouri, will be here to participate in the annual march for life. they see, as we do, that an unborn child is not a potential

person, but it's a person with potential, a whole, living, distinct human being. polling reflects that the american people understand that in a significant way. it's not a celebration but a powerful reminder that we value life as people come here this time of year. more americans are coming all the time to support life. we just had a meeting with someone who was going through the recent knights of columbus and merits poll. three in four americans say abortion should be limited to at most the first three months of pregnancy. these numbers continue to move in the direction of understanding that life begins at conception and more and more people believe that that life deserves to be protected, just like any other life would have. a majority of americans oppose

using taxpayer dollars to pay for any abortion at any time. 75% of americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion overseas. this includes 64% of self-identified pro-choice democrats who say they are not for spending taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas. 56% of republicans -- democrats, rather, and 80% of independents comprise that, as well as, as i said before, 64% of pro-choice individuals collectively say they are not for that. preventing taxpayer funding for abortion has been long-standing law and has -- has had a bipartisan consensus until just recently. this is an important issue that the country disagrees on, but the one thing that we reached agreement on is that those

people who think there is nothing wrong with abortion shouldn't force the -- the tax dollars of people who believe it is the most fundamentally wrong thing you can do to be used for abortion. so the hyde amendment prevents taxpayer funding of abortions or abortion coverage and various federal health programs, including medicaid and medicare and the children's health insurance program, all of those programs are in effect walled off from federal support if abortion is involved. a bill that i initially passed as chairman of the labor, health and human services appropriation committee renewed again this year the hyde amendment as it's been renewed every year since 1976 and signed into law in every year since 1976 by

republicans and democrats in the white house. recent calls for appeal of the amendment, however, in the democratic party platform and from a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle are just simply out of touch with where a majority of americans are and where 100% of the people coming here for the march for life are. instead, far from being repealed, the hyde amendment in my view needs to be made permanent, and it needs to be applied across the entire federal spending spectrum as it initially would have anticipated. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the no taxpayer funding of abortion act which would do just exactly that. i also want to take a moment to recognize the efforts of what has become one of the most pro-life administrations in our nation's history. one of the first executive orders president trump signed was to reinstate and expand the

mexico city policy. in fact, he wanted to expand it to the point that he even wanted to retitle it to the protecting life and global health assistance policy. the policy prevents federal tax dollars from funding foreign n.g.o.'s, foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion. i also want to call attention to the efforts the administration has taken proposing regulations that would first of all prevent title 10 family planning grantees with co-locating abortion clinics or from promoting or referring clients for abortions. none of that money was ever to be used for those purposes, but it's pretty hard when you are in the same facility not to suggest funded by the same overall group, not to suggest there is some connection. president trump and his

administration have said that would not be allowed. they have passed regulations to further protect the right of conscience. in a famous letter written in the last year of his presidency, president jefferson said that the right of conscience, the right to fervently believe what you believe is the right thing should be the right that we hold most dear, and the president is trying to be sure that that applies in every possible case to federal law as well. they have also voted to separate payment requirements from abortion coverage in obamacare and have really continued to do exactly what the president said he would do in these areas. i know we all also want to encourage those who are marching for life on friday. every human life matters. the advocacy of people who come here year after year are perhaps

coming for the very first time makes a difference. so for the efforts of thousands who defy the weather and the anniversary of the decision just happens to be in what almost always turns out to be the worst weather we have in washington during the year, but that doesn't seem to deter those who are marching here or those who are speaking to those who come here, to defy the weather and to march for life. mr. wicker: if i might be recognized? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: on the senator from iowa's time. let me join here, the senator from missouri, and may i associate myself with their remarks, and their support not only for the march for life, which will occur on friday, but also for the no taxpayer funding of abortion legislation which

i'm proud to be the principal cosponsor of and which will, we hope, be voted on on the senate floor by tomorrow afternoon. i was -- i was a pretty young staffer for then-congressman trent lott in 1981 when i first became aware that there was such a thing as the march for life. i can assure you it will be much more massive this year than it was back in those early days when americans were struggling with what roe v. wade meant and when they weren't quite so sure what the science was about this practice of abortion. as each year passes, as more and more parents see that sonogram, as more and more grandparents -- and i'm a

grandparent of six now. i'm buddy to six beautiful grandchildren. as we see those sonograms early on, we see the feet and we see the heartbeat and we see the faces of these children, we realize as americans, and more and more americans are coming to the realization that this is a living human that deserves protection. and senator blunt was accurate in saying we have good polling. a polling is coming around to our way. even if some people considered themselves to be pro-choice, you dove down into the figures and you asked them the questions, it turns out they aren't quite so proabortion as people might think. for example, when we asked the question that the no taxpayer

funding of abortion bill goes to centrally, do you support taxpayer funding for abortion? 24% oppose and 30% strongly oppose. a majority of 54% of americans, some of them who actually would check the box and say they're pro-choice, 54% of all americans say no, we shouldn't go so far as to provide taxpayer funding for abortion. that is what this legislation tomorrow afternoon that will be considered on the floor of the senate would do. when asked another question. should abortions be banned after 20 weeks with the exception of the life of the mother, 59% of americans -- 59% of americans say yes they strongly support or

support banning abortions after the 20th week. so i would say that the march for life is working year after year, step after step, and i hope we get a good vote on the floor of the senate tomorrow. do i think this is going to sail through the house of representatives and be sent by nancy pelosi's house to the president for a signature? probably not, but we make the case and we warmly welcome these marchers for life each and every year, and we appreciate what they have done to move the needle of public opinion and to protect those innocent people who have no way of protecting themselves. i see that we are joined by my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from nebraska,

and perhaps she might have some remarks to say. but i'll yield the floor at this point. mrs. fischer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i rise today in support of the thousands of people who will travel to our nation's capital this week to join us in the march for life. marching proudly among them will be many, many nebraskans, families, neighbors, student organizations, and church groups. they're going to brave the snow and the freezing temperatures to march along the national mall as part of a peaceful rally that draws attention to pro-life and prowomen policies. since i first started my career in public service, i have supported commonsense pro-life measures that protect women and

unborn children. all too often women are faced with unplanned pregnancies, and they experience condemnation instead of compassion. these women shoulder despair, pain, and judgment when they should receive comfort, assistance, and reassurance. these mothers should always know they have support as they face challenging years ahead. here in the senate i am proud to pledge my support for several pro-life bills. this afternoon i would like to highlight a few of them. once again i am cosponsoring the pain-capable unborn child protection act. this legislation would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or the pregnancy as a result of rape or incest. 20 weeks as advances in science

and medical technology tell us, is the point at which an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. when i served in the nebraska legislature, we passed the first ban on abortions after 20 weeks. republicans and democrats, pro-choice and pro-life senators voted in its favor because it is sound policy. we should enact this commonsense legislation at the federal level as well. i am also a cosponsor of the protect funding for women's health care act, and this bill would prohibit the federal funding of planned parenthood or any of its affiliates. in 2016 planned parenthood received nearly $544 million from the federal government. i believe that congress must

redirect this funding to where it belongs, and that's to our community health centers. in nebraska, we have seven community health centers with 44 clinic sites all across our state. i have had the opportunity to visit these sites, and i see firsthand the high-quality, compassionate care that they provide to women in need. our patients in nebraska would be better served if this federal funding were directed toward these centers and also these clinics who serve all nebraskans , all nebraskans, everywhere in our state, not planned parenthood. the protect funding for women's health care act is another commonsense solution that will protect life and help provide comprehensive health care for women. and finally i will once again

support no taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion insurance full disclosure act introduced by the senior senator from mississippi. since the 1970, the hyde amendment has prohibited the use of federal dollars to fund abortions, but it requires a yearly passage through congress. this measure would permanently establish in statute the protections of the hyde amendment. these are few of the important pro-life policies that i'm working on here in the senate. mr. president, again, i want to welcome all of the nebraskans who are traveling over 1,000 miles to take part in the march for life. it's great to see the pro-life movement building such momentum. more and more young people are joining the cause and standing tall for this timeless value,

and i want though thank each and every one of them for their courage and for taking a stand for what they believe in, for what science tells us. they march not with anger or condemnation, but with love and hope. they will be living out the direction of mother teresa when at the 1994 national prayer breakfast, she said a sign of care for the weakest of the weak, the unborn child, must go out into the world. then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. so 12 of the nebraskans -- so to all of the nebraskans and to all of the americans who will gather here in washington for the march for life, please know that i support your every step. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you very much to my colleagues, the senator from nebraska, the senator from mississippi, as well as our other colleague, the senator from missouri. thank you for joining us on the floor today to express our support for those that march for life. thank you so much. as my colleagues can attest, the invaluable message being shared by the pro-life community this week has implications far beyond that of simply the march for life. as i travel across my home state of iowa, i see this life affirming message in our pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. these comprehensive on-the-ground services provide women and families with service options that are changing and saving lives every single day.

these life-affirming services are the foundation of the pro-life movement across our nation, and i sincerely thank those centers and agencies for their critical work to fight for vulnerable lives throughout the year. i see the same message in the remarkable stories of individual families such as the pickerring family from newton, iowa. i had the opportunity to share the phenomenal story of micah pickerring on the senate floor before. and as you may recall, micah was born at just 20 weeks post fertilization. he was only about the size of a bag of m&m's, the size of the palm of my hand. that was micah.

yet, micah was also a perfect, fully formed baby boy with ten fingers and ten toes. in fact, no one makes his case more he eloquently than micah himself. when i first met micah -- when i first met micah, i had a picture of him displayed in my office from the day that he was born, again, the size of the palm of my hand. micah immediately ran up to that picture, he pointed at it, and he said, baby. micah recognized right away that

even at just 20 weeks post fertilization, the humanity of the child was undeniable. micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the university of iowa hospitals and clinics recognized this humanity is well and were dedicated to his survival. today micah is a happy, healthy, and energetic six-year-old boy. stories like micah's are extraordinary reminders of how the life-affirming services at the pro-life community marches have for real and significant impacts on the lives of families

across america. since coming to congress, i have also tried to do my part to ensure that this message from those in my home state of iowa and from others in communities from all across the nation is taken back and turned into action in washington. for me, that has meant supporting crucial pro-life initiatives like the pain-capable unborn child protection act, which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks of development, the very same age at which my dear micah was born. another critical piece of legislation, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, would create concrete enforcement provisions to hold

abortionists accountable if they do not provide the same degree of care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would any child born naturally premature at that same age. fighting for commonsense legislation that protects innocent life has been a priority of mine in the senate, but congress must also do more to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize abortion or the abortion industry giants such as planned parenthood. during the 115th congress, i led the fight in the senate to pass critical legislation which was signed into law in 2017 that ensures states are not forced to provide entities like ploond,

the nation's single largest provider of abortions with federal title $10. i am grateful to have worked with former congressman diane black, senate colleagues, and president trump to make sure states that are not forced to award providers like planned parenthood with taxpayer dollars for title 10 family planning grants. as i have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for roughly half a billion -- billion with a b -- dollars annually for an organization like planned parenthood that exhibits such disrespect for human life. with that in mind, today i reintroduce legislation that would defund planned parenthood while still protecting vital funding for women's health care

services. contrary to what they claim, planned parenthood is not the nation's preeminent provider of women's health care. in fact, planned parenthood, their facilities do not even perform in-house mammograms. something so simple is not performed by planned parenthood. on the other hand, just as my colleague, the senior senator from nebraska stated, community health centers continue to greatly out number planned parenthood clinics nationwide and provide more comprehensive preventive and primary health services, including cervical and breast cancer screenings,

diagnostic laboratory services, well-child care, prenatal and post-natal care, immunizations and so much more. access to comprehensive health services is absolutely critical to women and families across this nation, and federally qualified health centers offer such services regardless of a person's ability to pay. a recent g.a.o. study that i requested, along with am of my colleagues in both the house and the senate, showed that over a three-year period federally qualified health centers served 25 million individuals compared to only 2.4 million individuals that planned parenthood served.

that's more than ten times more people served by those health care centers. furthermore, recent maris polls show that 54%% of americans do not support taxpayer dollars going towards apportions. while there are federal regulations that prevent federal dollars from directly covering abortion, these laws are governed by policies and funding riders that must be reapproved during the appropriations processes every single year. since 1976, the hyde amendment has been attached to appropriations bills in order to block federal funds to pay for abortion. however, this policy, which once drew widespread bipartisan support has recently been under

attack. for the first time of the affordable care act authorized and appropriated funds that by passed the -- bypassed the hyde amendment funding restrictions. in 2016, the democratic party added the repeal of the hyde amendment protections to its presidential platform. the hyde amendment is a longstanding and critical provision that protects federal dollars and ensures taxpayers are not footing the bill for abortion procedures. that is why i support the no taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion insurance full disclosure act of 2019, which was recently reintroduced in the senate. this legislation would permanently codify the hyde amendment, ensuring that funding

restrictions remain in place and are applied to all federal programs. furthermore, this bill takes important steps to eliminate certain tax benefits related to abortions and improve disclosure requirements related to insurance coverage of abortion. preventing our taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion procedures, a position that a majority of americans agree with, should not be a complicated process vulnerable to partisan attack. congress must take steps to ensure permanent protections apply governmentwide. as such, i urge the senate to consider the no taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion insurance disclosure act on the floor in order to protect not only our taxpayer dollars but the innocent lives of our most

vulnerable. i appreciate all of the marchers that will be coming to washington, d.c., in the following day and spending their time in a most worthy effort, which is our annual march for life. god bless them all. of course god bless my iowans for that journey, and thank you so much, mr. president, and i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: are we in a quorum call? i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: i'm going to speak again shortly from the floor but i wanted associate myself with my senior senators' comments. debra fisher just spoke and welcomed pro-life students to the capitol the next three days. it is wonderful to be associated with a movement that is fundamentally about love and is about the dignity of every baby. so i want to join my senior senator in welcoming nebraska's pro-life students to the capitol and to washington, d.c. for the

march for life on friday. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i also ask unanimous consent for my intern, saline wolf, to have privileges of the the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. mr. president, i was just over in the russell house office building appeared a group of freshman from the -- fresh m.e.p. from the house intercepted me and handed me this piece of paper, this document, and asked that it be made part of the record of the senate. and i have come to do that. met me explain -- let me explain that these freshmen house members want to see the senate engaged in debate on how to end

this shutdown of our government. they see in their home districts across this country tremendous damage occurring in all kinds of fashion, damage to security, damage to the economy, damage to families trying to get a home mortgage and they can't get their f.h.a. approval, damage to farmers who are seeking that loan that is necessary to prepare for the next farming season, damage in the preparation for next summer's forest fires. i've been hearing about this from my home. we just had a training for fighting fires canceled in oregon. we have prescription burps that -- prescription burns that need to be done during the winter. we have had the reduction of fuels on the forests that add to the intensity.

just add one more to the list of so many ways that folks are being affected across the country. so i'm going to share with you this letter, mr. president and colleagues. it says, dear senator mcconnell, we write as members of the freshmen class of the 116th congress, an historic group that has the distinction of being the first congress to be seated in the midst of a partial government shutdown. we, as the legislative branch, have the to tower end this shutdown now. in the december the senate unanimously passed legislation that would have kept the government open. in january the house then passed those same bipartisan bills and sent them to the senate. if the senate were to pass these bills, we would be able to reopen the government and then proceed to debate about immigration reform and border security.

however, it is impossible to have a meaningful policy discussion while the executive holds public servants hostage. we respectfully request that you allow the congress to work its will and allow a vote on this bipartisan legislation end to the shutdown so we can end this manufactured crisis and allow our devoted federal workers to get back to work for the american people. sincerely, sue see lee, member of congress; abbey finkenhour, member of congress, mike levin, johanna hayes, laura trajan, katie hill, presley, david trone, ed case, gill cesndso,

kendra horn, angie craig, joe cunningham, chris papas, andy levin, susan wild, sylvia garcia, katie porter, debbie mercasel-powell, dean madeleine, hailey stevens, gregg stanton, josh harter, lucy mcbath, abigail spanberger, chrissie high school hasn't, donna shalala, alexander ocasio karates, t.j. conform, dean phillips, johanna hayes, and then a few more people who have added their names in the script that i may not be able to read accurately. in total, an estimated 46

signatures on this letter addressed to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. mr. president, i ask this letter be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, the freshmen of the house are speaking a lot of common sense in this letter. they're saying, here we are looking at bills that the senate passed under republican leadership, that the house has passed under democratic leadership. that's the foundation for going forward. let not the senate leadership be the obstruction to common sense. let not this chamber sit empty, sit quiet, sit without votes on these bills to put our government back to work. they want to see the senate have

the courage to take positions, to be here and argue to say yes or no. we don't say yes oar no if there's no -- we don't say yes or no if there's no bill before us. that must confound these 46 freshmen who kind of expected that after over 200 years of organizing we'd have a senate that could operate like an organizing body, not sit here vacant and quiet in the midst of a national countering america's adversaries through sanctions act, a countering america's adversaries through sanctions act -- a catastrophe. 800,000 families of federal workers, hundreds of thousands of more families of contractors interchange fee, millions of americans who simply want a core government service so they can proceed with their lives, a business permit, a home mortgage, an agricultural loan,

work being done to prevent forest fires. all of this a compromise to our national security in terms of our coast guard, our t.s.a.. it makes no common sense for us to sit here without action. so, mr. president, i praise the house freshmen for bringing a fresh, intense, common sense to the conversation on capitol hill. let their words be heard in this chamber. thank you, mr. president.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i have keep in mind to the floor today to -- i've come to the floor today to discuss the nomination of william barr to be attorney general. today i want to make clear that i will be opposed to this nomination for several reasons. i'm just going to outline some of my key concerns that really haven't been much addressed over the last few weeks. i'm specifically concerned about his view that the president of the united states is effectively

royalty in his book. and he seems to believe that the president is unaccountable to the laws of our nation or to the normal constraints imposed by the congress. so today i'm going to focus on what i consider to be mr. barr's dangerous views on surveillance and his contempt for surveillance law and the fourth amendment. it's my view that this is not a partisan issue. there has been for some years a bipartisan coalition here in the senate that has battled to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of americans. but mr. barr's views, after i've laid them out today, ought to frighten every member of this

senate. what mr. barr has said, whether the congress supports broader or narrower surveillance authorities, and regardless of whether congress votes for more checks and balances and oversight, mr. barr has said it really doesn't matter. he has made that judgment based on the proposition which he has stated very clearly that the president can essentially do what he wants. this nominee, in my view, poses a unique threat to the rule of law and the fourth amendment. his long-held views which presumably he would put in practice if confirmed, threaten the very notion that the congress or the courts have any

say on who in america gets spied on. if he's confirmed as attorney general, he could take us back and not just 12 years to an era of warrantless wiretapping. as mr. barr himself has made clear, he would be taking us back to 40 years to an era before the church committee, when neither the congress nor the courts had any role at all in checking or overseeing an abusive, out-of-control government. before the reforms of the 1970's, as has now been well documented, the government committed one horrific abuse after another. it spied on hundreds of thousands of innocent americans.

it spied on dr. martin luther king jr. it spied on ak visits. -- it spied on activists. it spied on congress. when the abuses finally came to light the congress acted by passing the foreign intelligence surveillance act which established a secret court to issue warrants against spies and terrorists. unfortunately, as we now know, the government violated the law when it implemented its warrantless wiretapping program in 2001. the program included warrantless collection of the content of private communications including through warrantless targeting of phone numbers and e-mail addresses of people here in our country. the program also included the bulk collection of phone and e-mail records of enormous numbers of innocent law-abiding

americans. all of this occurred in secret without warrants or any judicial oversight at all. and almost no one, no one in the congress, nor even most members of the intelligence committee knew anything about it. the secrecy didn't even end when the bulk phone and e-mail record programs were moved under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the obama administration, just like the bush administration, kept the abusive program in the secret legal interpretations behind it to the american people, even lying about it in public testimony. how did these abusive and illegal programs get their start? with secret determinations made

at the department of justice that the law didn't matter and that the president can do what he wants. so that brings us to mr. barr. his dangerous views on executive power have long been consistent consistent, consistent throughout his career, from his writings at the department of justice in the late 1980's to the present. in october of 2003, he laid out in public testimony his position that in mr. barr's view, the president is not accountable to surveillance laws and that the president enjoys huge loopholes in the fourth amendment. october 2003 was shortly after the congress had passed the patriot act, legislation that many in congress have come to view as granting too much

authority with too little oversight. from mr. barr's perspective, the patriot act was too limiting, too constraining, and that wasn't even the most troubling part of his testimony. right up front he asked himself the question of whether the law was adequate to fight terrorism. here's what he said. he said he wasn't worried about the law. and this is a direct quote. the critical legal powers are granted directly by the constitution, not by congressional enactments. in other words, mr. barr's view of surveillance is that the laws passed by the congress do not matter. the president wants to violate them, it's mr. barr's position that he can just go out and say he's got constitutional authority in doing it. here's a direct quote from mr. barr's testimony, talking

about laws going back to the 1970's. he said, and i quote, numerous statutes were passed such as the foreign intelligence surveillance act that purport to supplant presidential discretion with congressionally crafted schemes whereby judges become the arbiter of national security decisions. so i'm going to unpack that sentence for a minute. from mr. barr's perspective, decades of laws passed by the united states congress are nothing but schemes. schemes. he's talking about the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the fundamental framework of checks and balances that congress has relied on for four decades to ensure congressional and judicial oversight or surveillance. he's talking about every

modification from the patriot act to what's called section 702 we authorized last year to the freedom act which was intended to stop the collection of millions of innocent americans' phone records. whatever you think of these statutes, these statutes are how congress determines the extent of the government surveillance powers and exercises its responsibility to protect the rights of americans. mr. barr, notwithstanding these duly enacted laws of congress, are not mere schemes. worse still is mr. barr's contention that all of these laws only purport to have any effect. the president says mr. barr has the discretion to ignore them. by definition, if you are saying that the president can

just ignore the laws, in effect you're saying that's a position that is in favor of tyranny. this is as dangerous a position as i have heard in congressional testimony. it's very similar to the language that was concocted in the department of justice to justify warrantless wiretapping. and these are the views that come from the man who might be attorney general of the united states. now mr. barr is correct that the foreign intelligence surveillance act gives judges some say in when the government can spy on americans. it is a secret system, one that greatly advantages the government and almost always precludes challenges from those who are spied on. foreign intelligence surveillance act has been abused through secret interpretations of the law. but the foreign intelligence

surveillance act does involve judges considering the fourth amendment rights of americans, and that's what mr. barr objects to, based on his own testimony. it is clear to me that mr. barr has fundamental problems with the fourth amendment or at least its application to anything that the president might unilaterally decide involves national security. he believes that if the government determines there's a threat, there is no need to ask a judge for a warrant. the fourth amendment protects the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is a probable cause warrant. that's what the constitution says. mr. barr, however, has found two very, very big loopholes in the fourth amendment. first, he insists that if the government decides that a foreigner in the united states

is, a quote from mr. barr, apparently acting as a terrorist, then he or she is not one of the people, and the government can just throw out the fourth amendment. second, mr. barr argues that so long as the government says there's a threat, a warrantless search is not unreasonable and the warrant requirement in the fourth amendment doesn't apply. at the core of mr. barr's philosophy is that no one -- not congress and certainly not judges -- has any business assessing the government's assertion about threats. here's another quote from mr. barr. quote, these are assessments judges are not competent to make or responsible for making under the constitution. unquote. mr. president, for 40 years the judges of the foreign intelligence surveillance act court have been making these determinations, but from mr. barr's perspective the courts are not competent to decide who gets spied on.

only the president gets that power. now some might ask whether mr. barr has had a change of heart, particularly since congress has passed additional surveillance authority since the years since his testimony. i hope that we see in the days ahead where he stands, whether he now believes that spying on americans and people in the united states has to be consistent with the laws passed by congress. but his 2003 testimony suggests that even new sweeping bipartisan laws that have passed wouldn't satisfy him. a little over a decade ago congress created section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. that allows for warrantless spying on foreigners overseas. now, mr. president, i have said that our country faces real

threats from foreigners overseas. so i stipulate that that's something that's important to the safety of the law-abiding people that we all represent. but i have had serious concerns about the number of innocent americans whose communications are being swept up under section 702 collection. but at least the targets of the surveillance are overseas. mr. barr would go further in his testimony, calling for the warrantless targeting of people inside the united states. according to mr. barr, there are individuals right here in the united states who have no fourth amendment rights. mr. president, this is an important issue today, and it will become more important in the days ahead.

now i've already stipulated that i think there are serious threats to our country overseas. and what troubles me is that as telecommunications systems around the world become more globally interconnected, more and more innocent americans are going to get swept up in these searches. and to me, when you're talking, as mr. barr seems to be doing, that there are individuals in our country who have no fourth amendment rights, that's why i think all senators should be troubled about these positions he has long espoused. there's also the matter of collecting business records, sensitive information about americans that are in possession of a third party. now here we're talking about

your purchases. it's who you are communicating with. it's where you're located at any time of the day. mr. barr believes that the fourth amendment doesn't apply to any records held by a company or other third party, no matter how sensitive that information is. this view has actually been rejected recently by the united states supreme court, so what mr. barr has been saying is actually out of sync even with the current thinking of the supreme court. the supreme court most recently held the fourth amendment did apply to government's collection of location data from wireless carriers. apparently, yesterday mr. barr said he had not read that supreme court decision. colleagues, i think that ought to be really troubling to the members of this body.

we're talking about location data. location data can be a personal safety and national security nightmare. we saw what happened just last week in 2018. the wireless companies all made promises to me that they wouldn't make available location data, precise location data to hedge funds, bail bondsmen, all kinds of bottom feeders just looking to make a buck. and what happened was in 2018 those wireless companies said that they wouldn't make that data any longer available to these location trackers and bail bondsmen and the like, and then last week a bounty hunter got

$300 and found out those 2018 promises to me meant nothing. so last week the wireless companies promised again that they wouldn't make location data available to all of these financially interested parties, and i appreciate them saying it, but i'll tell you, i'll believe it when i see it, because we got a promise in 2018 that they would be serious about protecting location data, and we saw last week that they weren't. and you've got the supreme court now making it clear that the fourth amendment applies to government's collection of location data from wireless carriers, but the person who is up for nomination, mr. barr, has not been willing or finds it important enough to even read

the supreme court decision on this case. the government's collection of business records is authorized by section 215 of fisa, that's part of the patriot act. there's serious concerns about 215, abused for years to carry out a secret program that secret up the phone numbers of millions of innocent americans. even after the u.s.a. freedom act, it's been used to collect hundreds of millions of phone records. all the government needs to collect these records is to show the fisa court that the records are relevant to an investigation. no requirement for a probable cause warrant. this important loss sunsets this year -- this important law sunsets this year. so the congress will have a debate about whether these authorities are too broad, whether there is a need for more checks and balances. i see my colleague from texas also serving on the intelligence

committee. we're going to have a debate about it. that's the way it ought to be. today we're talking about what i consider to be dangerous views espoused by mr. barr, and what mr. barr believes is that government shouldn't have any court oversight at all when it comes to collecting the records on americans. he thinks that the government should just unilaterally issue a subpoena and collect those records and there would be no oversight whatever. the foundation of mr. barr's beliefs when it comes to surveillance is the president can do whatever he wants, if he believes that national security is at stake. so i'm going to close by simply talking for an additional minute or two about what this means if mr. barr is confirmed as president trump's attorney general. right now the president is

considering a declaration that he, donald trump, has the will to override the powers of congress and he is relying on the baseless s. theirs there is a national crisis. until he was fact-checked, he was making really far-fetched claims about terrorists coming over the border. he also regularly calls journalists enemies of the people and calls for investigations of his political enemies. i would oppose the nomination of anyone with william barr's views on executive power regardless of who was president. donald trump has openly said and said specifically how much he would enjoy unchecked surveillance power. during the 2016 campaign, when the russians were hacking his opponents, i would to read this, the president of the united states, our current president, said, and i quote, honestically,

i wish i had that power. i'd love to have that power, unquote. so if donald trump decides that national security is at stake and william burr is his attorney general, it would be mr. barr who might give him that power, the power he could use with no oversight from courts on the one hand without -- and without regard for what mr. barr has dismissed as our lurks the schemes that he has -- as our laws, the schemes that he has described the laws of the congress. and in case anyone thinks that mr. barr would himself serve as a check on the president, he's also i think written that that is not the job of the attorney general. just last year wrote that all executive power rests in one and only one person -- the president -- and the president doesn't have to convince his attorney general that his orders are legal. so, mr. president, let me be clear. the issues that i have raised with respect to mr. barr's views

on surveillance are not kind of conjecture or possible theories. what i have been talking about this afternoon are the views outlined in mr. barr's own testimony. i hope that every member of the body will take the time to read what mr. barr's testimony has stated and consider what's at stake. there are members in both political parties in this chamber who've lopping been concerned about the expansive surveillance authorities under the foreign intelligence surveillance act or the possible abuse of that law. those concerns are in my view small potatoes compared to what mr. barr has proposed, which is that the law need not constrain the president whatsoever. for example, some members of this body have expressed concern

about foreign intelligence surveillance act warrants in connection with the russian investigation and whether all relevant information has been provided to the fisa court. consider a world in which the government doesn't need a warrant and doesn't have to justify its surveillance to knit court. consider the possibility of abuse in that world. that is the world that mr. barr has testified that he wants. i also would appeal to my colleagues with whom i've had some pretty vigorous debates over the years about surveillance and who may have had no concerns about the current framework of our laws. we can have our disagreements about how to write the law. we do here in the senate agree that the laws passed by the congress meaning is. they are binding. and they are not, as mr. barr has stated, schemes that the

president can just ignore whenever he feels like it. this nominee has been more than clear about where he stands. he believes the president alone decides when there is a threat and when he does, he doesn't have to worry about congress, judges, the law, or the constitution. in my view, that is a prescription for trouble, a prescription for more abuses, abuses which congress may or may not even be told about. but we've been warned. we had been warned by mr. barr's testimony. mr. president, i'd also like to note that i have concerns about mr. barr that relate to classified matters, and i am currently seeking declassification of those matters and hope that this will be resolved prior to any votes on the nominee.

i see colleagues are waiting, and, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: plop? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday the senate judiciary committee began to hear witnesses on the nomination of bill barr to be the next attorney general of the united states. we heard first of course from mr. barr himself, all day yesterday, and today from additional witnesses. by any standard, mr. barr is an exceptionally qualified individual, in part because 27 years ago he was attorney general then, too, nominated and confirmed unanimously. nominated by president george herbert walker bush. under his leadership at the time, the department of justice focused on some of the most important law enforcement challenges facing our country at that time. they worked to fight violent crime and combat the drug epidemic, both of which continue to do great harm to communities

across the country still today. as significant as the work done under his leadership was, i was more impressed with the fact that after 27 years he was willing to take on the task of becoming attorney general once again. he said he was sort of semi-retired. he and his wife were looking forward to spending more time with their children and grandchildren. but he answered the call to public service, and i'm, for one, grateful that he did. he knows that our nation needs a strong law-and-order attorney general at the department of justice. when he spoke at his confirmation hearing more than two and a half decades ago, he said the attorney general must ensure that the administration of justice, the enforcement of the law, is above and away from politics. nothing could be more destructive of our system of government, the rule of law, or the department of justice as an

institution than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the law. he repeated that commitment yesterday, and i think the need for that sort of strong statement is more important today than ever. i believe attorney general barr will be a good attorney general, assuming what is one of the most challenging positions in the cabinet, because you're both a political appointee, but you are also the chief law enforcement officer of the country. that sometimes can be difficult to navigate. as the nominee noted, doing the job and doing it well sometimes requires being prepared to burn your political capital in order to preserve the rule of law. i believe this is the most fundamental quality of a good attorney general, and having a leader at the helm of the department of the justice with the right temperament and a fundamental understanding of this responsibility is critical

-- now and forever. in recent years, we've witnessed some attorneys general carrying out actions that at least repeatedly towed that political line, sometimes crossed it. under the obama administration, the department of justice began to veer increasingly away from the impartial administration of law and toward politics. that shift undoubtedly occurred at the hands of barack obama's attorneys general who were in the driver's seat during his administration, eric holder and loretta lynch. their conduct has come under a great deal of scrutiny, even now after they've left and for good reason. for example, under then-attorney general holder, there was something called operation fast and furious in which the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and the department of justice purposefully allowed the illegal sale of firearms into mexico in the hopes of being able to track them.

unfortunately, there were a number of casualties, including border patrolman brian terry, who was killed by one of those firearms in 2010. attorney general holder never accepted responsibility for brian terry's death or ever admitted that allowing these guns to walk into mexico, into the hands of some criminal organizations, was a terrible mistake. and then under his watch, the i.r.s. targeting controversy occurred in which politically aligned groups applying for tax-exempt status faced official oppression based upon their political affiliation. and then, of course, more recently, let's not forget, then-attorney general lynch's handing of the clinton e-mail scandal, something even james comey, the f.b.i. director, objected to. and along with her famous so-called tarmac meeting with former president bill clinton when his wife was under an

active f.b.i. investigation. the conduct of both holder and lynch undermine the public's confidence and the impartial administration of justice of law at the justice department. under the leadership of my friend and our former colleague, jeff sessions, the department of justice has begun to right the ship and again separate politics from impartial administration of the law. and i'm confident mr. barr will continue to do the same. during his confirmation hearing, mr. barr reaffirmed that politicians should not interfere with criminal investigations, and he likewise committed to not interfere with the special counsel's investigation. he assured us that his allegiance will be to the rule of law and to the constitution and the american people, and that above all else, he will work to protect the professionalism and integrity of the department of justice and the thousands of dedicated public servants who work there. not only is mr. barr

exceptionally qualified for the job, he's prepared on day one to step in and lead with distinction. the senate unanimously confirmed his nomination though three different positions at the department of justice, and i hope we can work expeditiously to get this fine h man to the department of justice once again. i thank mr. barr and his entire family for agreeing to bri his talents -- bring his talents and temperaments to the department of justice at a time when those qualities are desperately needed and i look forward to voting yes on his nomination. mr. president, on another matter, i want to share a few words about the passing of one of the airline industry's most unconventional and most successful executives. that would be herb callaher, southwest airlines. he was born in 1931 in new jersey and his young life and early career kept him on the east coast. he graduated from wesleyan

university and new york university school of law and served as a law clerk for two years at the new jersey supreme court and then joined a law firm in newark. but his fate intervened and this promising young lawyer's career, he mitt his wife joan -- met his wife joan, a native texan and they decided to move to the lone star state, something he later referred to as the greatest business decision he ever made. building america's largest domestic airline carrier was never on herb's to-do list. in the late 1960's he was an attorney in santonio when one day his client approached him about an idea about a low fare airline serving three texas cities. tired of spending so much in the car and traveling so much between san antonio, houston and dallas, he believed they could make point to point intra state travel faster and much cheaper by flying and also cheaper than other airlines.

getting their innovative idea off the ground wasn't easy. these men who founded southwest airlines slogged through years of legal battles before the airline operated its first flight. their vision not only led to the creation of a budget airline but also drove down the costs of their competitors as competition will do. and to maintain their edge, southwest tried some interesting ideas along the way. after another airline ran an ad calling southwest a cheap carrier, herb responded by filming a commercial where he wore a brown paper bag over his head and promised that the airline would gladly provide one to any customer too embarrassed to be seen flying on southwest airline. at one point he competed with the low point of other airlines, southwest started a program to keep customers, they said you can either pay the lowest fare or pay full fare and get a free premium bottle of liquor in the process.

well, apparently it worked, and for a short time i'm told southwest was the largest liquor distributor in the state of texas. but i think one of the most distinctly herb celeher stories is the -- kelleher stories is the malice in dallas. the airlines realized slogans playing smart and just playing smart were similar. rather than settling it in court they settled it by holding a public arm wrestling match. the 61-year-old with a cigarette fixed between his teeth gave his much younger competitor a run for his money, but he couldn't pull off a win. at the end of the match the two men made donations to each other's chosen charities. they agreed to share the slogan and called it a day. each of these stories has herb kelleher written all over it. he was known for his gregarious

personality, incredible work ethic and penchant for the nontraditional, not to mention his affinity for wild turkey. i met herb when i represented him in a lawsuit in san antonio. he had a larger than life personality and it was a pleasure to know him. we can all learn a lesson from herb about the importance of working hard, treating people with respect and not being afraid to have a little bit of fun along the way. his entrepreneurial spirit was credited with democratizing the skies by disrupting the airline industry, and i believe he was one of the most consequential leaders in modern aviation, and we've all benefited from that. so i join herb's wife joan, his children, his grandchildren, his many friends and of course his beloved southwest airlines family in mourning the loss of this largeer-this-life figure. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i also mourn herb's loss. it's odd i would be here to protect his ability to have that cigarette in his mouth as negotiating. i rise today to discuss the recent announcement by the food and drug administration to move forward with a ban on menthol cigarettes. this announcement, to say the least, is surprising. in an administration claiming to decrease regulation on the american people, this is announcement works completely counter to that goal. increasing regulation and decreasing the choices for adult consumers in america. making matters worse, the announcement comes from an agency that the american people trust. they trust them to make decisions based upon the most sound and reliable science available. unfortunately, the f.d.a. has not provided a sound scientific

argument to move forward with the ban on one type of product which americans consume understanding fully the risk. on november 30, 2018, i raised this concern with the food and drug administration. as a part of their announcement, the f.d.a. claimed that the regulatory actions are based on information released by the centers for disease control and prevention, or c.d.c. when i asked for the data supporting this menthol decision, i was informed this data would be made available later this year. i also asked the f.d.a. to explain to me whether the agency has determined that menthol cigarettes make more children try smoking or whether these products make it more difficult for children to stop smoking. i pause here because i am sure the president is remembering, it's illegal for people under 18 to purchase tobacco products.

the f.d.a. simply informed me that the information i requested would be part of a proposed rule available for stakeholder comment. now, mr. president, i think you would agree that it's highly unusual for a science-based agency to refuse to provide the data in forming its regulatory decisions to a sitting member of the united states congress. this should send off alarm bells. any product regulated by the f.d.a. might fall into this category of no member of congress being able to know. well, it may seem odd, but the f.d.a. regulates 25 cents of every $1 of the u.s. economy. no wonder it takes so long and costs so much for new drugs and devices to come to market. as a result, i did my own research. the chart behind me, with 2017

data from the c.d.c. shows that children's use of traditional menthol cigarettes has decreased 3% since 2011. let me say that again. since 2011, usage by youth in america of menthol cigarettes has reduced from 5.8% to 2.5%. this data runs counter to the need for increased regulation and decreased choices for consumers and calls into question f.d.a.'s own decision. in 2009, congress debated the regulation of tobacco products. i was here for the entire debate and was an active participant in the dialogue. i provided alone over 16 hours of remarks on the senate floor so that my colleagues understood my concerns with this type of legislation and to ensure, quite frankly, the voice of north carolinians was clearly

and deeply understood in the united states senate. one issue discussed during that debate was actual the banning of flavors in cigarettes, including menthol. congress struggled to come to a consensus on this issue, offering many iterations at the time of the legislation, taking different approaches to the ban of any, all, or none of the flavors available in cigarettes at the time. ultimately the decision was made for the f.d.a. to thoroughly study the effects of menthol cigarettes. the agency issued its report in 2011 and commissioned a third-party entity to study the science behind menthol cigarettes for which a report was issued in 2013. now what resulted from the results of that study? for the remainder of president obama's terms in office which ended in 2016, their f.d.a. never attempted to move a

menthol ban. why? because the results of that information, that scientific data, did not substantiate what in fact that would accomplish. in the five years since the publication of these studies the science has not changed to justify the ban of an entire product category by the f.d.a. each year the c.d.c. issues the latest data from the national youth tobacco survey. this survey asks about 20,000 children about their tobacco use. it's been conducted since 1999. this survey covers details of middle and high schoolers' use and exposure to a variety of tobacco products and includes specifics on the use of different product categories like traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes as well as data on the percentage of survey participants that try menthol. the c.d.c. data shows that there's been a 12-point decrease in the percentage of children

trying traditional cigarettes since 2011. let me state that again. the c.d.c.'s own data shows that there's been a 12% reduction in the percentage of children trying traditional cigarettes since 2011. now this is good news. the use of cigarettes among children is decreasing, showing that our education and our public health efforts are in fact working. as i mentioned before, the survey shows that the use of menthol cigarettes by children has also declined, decreasing 3% since 2011. even the f.d.a.'s own data shows the decline in children's use of traditional cigarettes. now, this chart i have basically shows that traditional cigarettes have fallen 12% since

2011 to the latest survey data 2017. it's probably difficult for some to see, but the red arrow pointing down certainly indicates a decrease. the red arrow pointing up shows an increase. now that should be alarming and it's an area that we'll talk about in a second. but the solution here is simple. data released by the c.d.c. and f.d.a. provide a clear marker that the f.d.a.'s focus should be on areas where children's use is increasing rather than in areas where we are already making significant progress. i might pause and say that if a product is illegal for somebody under 18. i don't know how you ban a product and believe that it wasn't already banned if it was illegal. the f.d.a.'s decision does not pass the commonsense test.

it's time for f.d.a. to focus on the things where there's an increase for children. i'll give them an example: marijuana, opioids, fentanyl, meth. we've debated it on this floor of the united states senate. while we're looking at one thing and f.d.a.'s got us focused on it, look at how many children's lives are devastated in this country, again, with illegal products. one can only conclude by what we're doing, which is banning menthol, is that we're emulating canada. several years ago they banned menthol and last year they legalized marijuana. that may be the route we're on. i'm not sure. nothing surprises me any more in washington. june of this year will mark the tenth anniversary of the tobacco control act which provided the f.d.a. regulatory authority over tobacco products. the