vote:

the presiding officer: are any senators wishing to change their votes or are any senators wishing to vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider can

considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of joshua m. kindred of alaska to be united states district judge for the district of alaska, signed by 17 senators. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that the votes in this series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of joshua m. kindred of alaska to be united states district judge for the district of alaska shall be brought to a close. on this -- i'm sorry. the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote or to vote? hearing none, the yeas are 52, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture vote. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of matthew thomas schelp, of missouri. the presiding officer: by mandatory consent. is it the sense of the senate

that debate on the nomination of matthew thomas schelp, of missouri, to be u.s. district judge for the eastern district of missouri, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 72, the nays are 22. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

nomination of john fitzgerald kness of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: i unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john fitzgerald kness of illinois to be u.s. district judge for the northern district of illinois shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any member in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 82, the nays are 12. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the scriewls -- standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of

philip m. halpern of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the chemical weapon -- the question is is it the sense of the senate that philip m. halpern should be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. the yeas and nays have been ordered under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their votes? seeing none, the yeas are 75, the nais are -- nays are 18. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, philip m. halpern, of new york, to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today as the democrats seem to be in complete disarray with voting under way in new hampshire. for all of their anger, all of their outrage, they have failed to tap into all of the great things that to me and the people of wyoming that we see happening all across america. democrat primary voters in new hampshire seem to be on the verge of nominating for president of the united states a socialist. madam president, by any way you look at it, we have a strong, healthy and growing economy, and

a socialist is now the frontrunner for the democrat nomination for president. socialist policies would bankrupt our country. what's their top priority? it seems to be a complete government takeover of health care in america. that means for the 180 million americans who get their health insurance through their jobs, each and every one of them would lose it. also, to pay for it, taxes would go up, they would go up significantly. this would be a crushing blow to the economy. the democrat party's sharp left turn has president clinton's long-term strategist james carville, as he said, scared to death. this is what he said on friday, james carville, we have candidates talking about open borders. he said they are talking about doing away with nuclear energy

and with fracking. madam president, and then he added, you've got bernie sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote, he said, from jail cells. during friday's debate in new hampshire, the one that was nationally broadcast, there was hardly a positive word from the democrats about our country. our booming economy continues to create jobs at a record pace. millions of jobs. last month alone 225,000 new jobs. swee have a 50 -- we have a 50-year low in our country right now it is an historical number. we've created opportunity for all americans. everyone is better off. middle-class wages, blue collar wages are up. we have a middle class and blue collar boon in this country and americans realize it and they have high hopes for the future.

still the 2020 democrats seem to have nothing positive to say about our economy and our country. no positive ideas, no positive vision, no positive agenda for the american people. clearly, madam president, when i listen to them, it's all about grandstanding, it's not about governing. republicans, however, have a results-driven agenda. the economic renaissance that we're seeing is a direct result of republican pro-growth policies. tax and regulatory relief, that's what has mattered to this economy. energy independence, that's what has mattered to this economy. pro-worker, pro-farmer trade deals, that's what has made a difference for this economy. we remain focused, madam president, on priority issues like lowering the cost of health care, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, securing our border, and building and

rebuilding our aging roads and bridges. so, madam president, as the president said just last tuesday night during the state of the union address, he said the best is yet to come. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you very much. since tax reform was enacted in december of 2017, our economy has grown and strengthened with american families and businesses seeing real benefits. and you just heard senator barrasso say some of the same things about how the economy's booming. unemployment rates have dropped dramatically. with unemployment among

hispanic, latino and african american workers at record lows. according to the bureau of labor statistics, average hourly earnings have grown at a rate of 3% or higher for 16 consecutive months with the largest wage gains concentrated in the bottom quarter of the wage scale. we should duly note that production workers' wages are growing much faster than wages for manager class. in short, lower-income workers are seeing the highest wage growth. but instead of looking at the positive economic effects of tax reform, our democratic colleagues insist that large corporations have received a

massive giveaway and only the wealthy have benefited. that is simply not true. tax reform address a number of issues that were frequently highlighted by both political parties. in particular, tax reform made enormous progress towards creating a more competitive environment for american companies. now, before tax reform, the combined u.s. federal and state corporate tax rates was the highest in the developed world. 15 percentage points higher than the average of the other 35 advanced economies that are members of the organization of economic cooperation and development, which we commonly

refer to around here as oecd. now, you heard about the last few years before the tax bill of companies going overseas. we had inversions, foreign acquisitions of u.s. companies, and the erosion of the u.s. tax base, these were all very significant problems that we addressed in the tax cut act of 2017. and with our worldwide tax system, companies were actually incentivized to store corporate profits in low-tax jurisdictions overseas instead of reinvesting them back here in the united states. how can that help the united states economy? we had perverse incentives to

keep wealth out of this country. ironically, even democrats highlighted these same issues in the leadup to -- lead up to tax reform, a bipartisan recognition that we shouldn't have a tax system that encourages storing money overseas instead of bringing that money and capital back to the united states to create jobs here. they are only partisan issues now. as it turns out because tax reform was a republican effort. but both sides of the aisle knew these issues had to be addressed for u.s. companies to remain competitive and for the u.s. economy to continue leading the world. critics of tax reform complained

that the 21% rate is too low, but with the average corporate tax rate of 21.7% among the oecd countries today, the united states is finally in line with our peers -- in other words, we can be competitive. as a result, u.s. companies are competitive and investments in the united states are more attractive not only to foreign companies but to u.s. companies that used to store money overseas. after tax reform legislation passed in 2017, business investment rose by 6.4% in 2018 while a weaker global economy, tariffs and other factors subdued growth last year in

2019, business investment in 2018 and 2019 combined was still 5.7 -- $5.7 trillion and that hit record highs. capital expenditures of s&p 500 companies have risen by 17% since tax reform and research and development expenditures of s&p 500 companies rose by 18%, all of this showing that our law accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish. hardly, then, the anemic response to tax reform that the democrat critics would have us believe, tax reform has changed our international tax rules to remove barriers that previously

prevented companies from bringing foreign earnings home. in the seven quarters since enactment of the tax reform, u.s. companies have brought back to the united states more than $1 trillion of foreign earnings. and obviously u.s. companies are using these earnings to finance new capital expenditures, increase research and development, increase payrolls, pay down debt, and return cash to shareholders and retirement accounts. the companies are putting those earnings to work in this count country, not leaving them abroad. that economic gain and the jobs created as a result of it is because of the 2017 tax cut legislation.

but we also took care to ensure that companies wouldn't be able to take advantage of the new u.s. tax system. tax reform made significant strides to address inversions, capitaovers of u.s. -- capit capitaovers of u.s. companies and erosion. you remember the outrage before the tax bill when there were inversions and foreign takeovers of u.s. companies. and then the result of erosion of our tax base. together lower tax rate and new international rules have changed the way that companies structure their business operations. for example, assurant, a global insurance company, changed its agreement so that its new parent company remains here in the

united states. broadcom, a technology firm announced that it would return its headquarters to the united states, and this came after tax reform. similarly, several energy and pharmaceutical companies have had -- that had previously moved out of the united states also made the decision to return primarily because of tax reform. you know, the old, old saying can apply to this tax legislation. what we wanted to accomplish was accomplished and that old saying is the proof is in the pudding. so tax reform has leveled the playing field and made the united states a far more attractive place to do business. hardly the dire consequences that critics would have us

believe. now, you know, critics never give up. not to be deterred, the critics continued to look for misleading information to distort the picture. most recently, they pointed to the congressional budget office projections as evidence that tax reform and recently-issued tech u.s. treasury department regulations have provided a windfall to corporations. i hate to see congressional budget office's professional work and nonpartisan work manipulated to say something it clearly does not. and i meant to use the word manipulated. first and foremost, c.b.o.'s,

that's the congressional budget office, downward adjustment of expected corporate tax receipts does not imply that c.b.o. scores particularly treasury regulations or that a regulation departs from congressional intent. rather c.b.o.'s adjustments broadly reflect significant economic factors and changes in government data. in particular, c.b.o. adjusted its projections because we now know that bureau of economic analyses, estimates of corporate receipts between 2016 and 2018 were actually overstated. so you've got to make adjustments for that. in short, even pretax reform projections of corporate profits were really too high.

so when the estimate of corporate profits is corrected, it translates into lower tax receipts. but the other side doesn't seem to acknowledge this. c.b.o. also took into account current economic factors like recent trade actions and tarif tariffs, strengthening of the u.s. dollar, and the softening of foreign economies, all of which affected expected corporate profits and ultimate tax receipts. but our critics don't seem to acknowledge that fact. in addition, congressional budget office revised its projections to reflect everything that we're learning about implementation of the new tax rules, including regulatory guidance, new forms and

instructions that go with the tax forms, and modeling improvements to better reflect updated economic projections. and c.b.o. is only beginning to take into account how u.s. businesses are responding very positively to the new tax rules and treasury guidance. as many regulations are still being finalized, businesses are only starting to have needed certainty to invest in new property and equipment, to enjudge in mergers and ak -- engage in mergers and acquisitions, and to enter into new business transactions. the congressional budget office's projections are also based upon preliminary data, tax returns for the first year of the new law were filed less than six months ago, but the critics don't take that into

consideration. the final data will not be available from the i.r.s. until later this year, and even then we'll still take time to fully analyze but our critics don't recognize that. all of these factors go into c.b.o.'s revised projections of corporate tax receipts and none of them support the claim that treasury provided a windfall to corporations. i think the critics ought to go the extra mile to study and understand the impact of the tax cut law. there simply is no basis then for the critics' claim that the revision to c.b.o.'s estimate of corporate receipts means that treasury has given away the store to big corporations through its regulations.

despite the critics relentless attack, the benefits of tax reform are in fact proving out. all you've got to do is look at the good economy to know that that's the case. i'm encouraged by the promising economic data that i just referred to that suggests that american workers, american families, and american businesses are seeing positive effects. now, we must continue to promote policies that encourage u.s. businesses to keep operations on american soil. the 2017 bill does that. increase wages. the 2017 bill did that. and reinvest foreign earnings in the united states instead of leaving them overseas, and the 2017 tax bill does that.

i hope that my democratic colleagues will stop criticize ring the -- criticizing the policies that have strengthened our economy and in fact consider how we can work together to make our tax laws work even better for american businesses and workers. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call

mr. whitehouse: here on the floor today things seem back to normal. the floor is empty. we have a senator instead after chief justice in the chair. the quorum calls descend between the speeches. and our new pages are figuring out the non-impeachment routines of the floor. but outside of the senate,

mr. president, things are anything but normal. the threat of climate change worsens by the minute. carbon emissions continue to rise globally. we hurtle toward calamity, and yet we do not act. what's stopping us? the biggest, most powerful, most motivated force preventing climate action is the fossil fuel industry. and of course it would be. the fossil fuel industry reaps the biggest subsidy in the history of the planet. the international monetary fund estimates the global subsidy for fossil fuel in the trillions of dollars every year. united states alone, the fossil fuel industry -- in the united states alone, the fossil fuel industry got a $650 billion

subsidy in 2015, the most recent report from the i.m.f. that's about $2,000 from every woman, man, and child in the country. you wrote the check, and they will spend big bucks to defend that subsidy. in fact, to maintain their grip on that subsidy, fossil fuel companies deploy lots of propaganda on the american people. they swamp us in advertising. the game isn't just to sell you more gas. it's much bigger than that. professor robert brulle of drexel university now in rhode island at brown university together with his coauthors wrote a recent article, "corporate promotion and climate change." looking at oil companies carefully crafted public relations campaigns, deployed way back since legendary

muckraker ida tirade talked about the greed of the standard oil company. to offset the nastiness, fossil fuel companies have attempted to burnish their image in various ways, brulle and his colleagues write. including contemporary, multimedia promotional campaigns to project the corporation as a positive, responsible, and legitimate social actor. ha. the public began to catch on to the harms of industrial pollution in the 1960's and 1970's and big oil deployed public relations campaign to stem the public opinion tide. one example brulle uses is mobile oil, prethe exxonmobil

merger. in 1970, mobile began buying space on the opinion page of "the new york times." they called these things advertorials. not advertisements. they ran in the same section as real opinion pieces. every thursday those ads promoted mobile's image as a good corporate citizen and boosted its public policy priorities like reduced regulation of mobile's operations. meanwhile, mobile worked hard to place stories on airwaves and in print. between 1975 and 1977 alone, mobile representatives appeared on 365tv shows, 200 radio shows and gave 80 newspaper interviews, the study's authors observed. i will pause to note some good news which is that just

recently, the guardian announced that it will no longer accept advertising that props up fossil fuel like oil and coal. the guardian urged its colleagues in the media to do the same. acting chief executive anna batesson and hammish nicholson said in a statement, our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful action, climate action by governments around the world. welcome to our experience here in the united states congress. and as we have seen here in the united states congress, the fossil fuel industry companies have done that with dark money. they've done that with raw political muscle. they've done that through fake science. and they've done it through advertising campaigns. so bravo to "the guardian" for

shutting off that spigot of fossil fuel nonsense. i hope american media outlets follow suit. dr. brulle then turns to recent decades using spending figures from 1986 to 2015. he and his scientists find that corporate promotional spending for the five major oil companies in the u.s., exxonmobil, shell, chevron, texaco, bp and conoco philips totaled $23.6 billion. an average of $120 million per year and the trend is upwards. after -- $35 million in spending in 1996, from 1997 to 2004 -- there it is -- 2004,age spending rose to an average of $102

million per year. then brulle and his team chronicle spending averages leaped again between 2008 and 2016 to an average of $217 million per year. the spending figures themselves are pretty eye popping but what's important here is the patterns of spending. brulle and his coauthors write, the bulk of this spending corresponds to the increased public and congressional attention to climate change in recent years. not unexpectedly the major oil companies spent $315 million in 2010 alone which is when the highest possibility of binding climate legislation occurred. and that's no coincidence.

here in this building something was occurring that the fossil fuel industry saw as a threat. brulle and his colleagues continue. this high level of corporate promotional spending took place in response to the legislative battle from 20089 to -- 2009 to 2010 over the house of representatives' passage of the waxman-markey climate bill and the subsequent senate consideration of the kerry-lieberman climate legislation. this pattern shows big oil's purpose to block climate action in congress. and while we're talking about that period, right over there in the supreme court, the u.s. chamber of commerce and others on behalf of their big oil funders urged the supreme court to open up our politics to unlimited special interest spending, and the five republican justices on that court led by chief justice

roberts did and from that decision forward, we have seen a disaster in the senate on climate legislation. before that decision, we had four or five bipartisan climate bills going in the senate at any given time. we had a republican candidate for president john mccain who campaigned for president on a strong climate platform but right after that decision came out, right after the fossil fuel industry got handed that huge new hammer to knock any dissent on climate out of the republican party, they did so. and we've had a lost decade since then. so it's not just their advertising. but their p.r. spending certainly helped the fossil fuel industry block the waxman-markey bill and obstruct efforts since to solve the climate crisis.

another study by professor brulle just last month chronicled the full sweep of this industry's fight against climate legislation. brulle describes how this polluting industry used ads, webs of phony front groups, bogus science, and that massive citizens united political and p.r. artillery to fend off any meaningful action by congress. professor brulle breaks this process down to its component parts. one, shaping the direction of research efforts into nonthreatening areas. two, concealing information about the harmful aspects of a corporate product. three, attacking scientific findings and the scientists who produce research that threatens corporate interests.

four, packaging their own carefully constructed interpretations of the science to appear legitimate. and, five, aggressive efforts at spinning the media to promulgate favorable press. a typical example of the first tactic is oil company ads touting research and investments in alternative low-carbon fuels or renewable energy. for instance, we've seen exxonmobil ads touting research into algae biofuels, and we've seen b.p. ads touting renewable energy you understand its enable -- under its label beyond petroleum. badly polluting would be a better acronym. so, how much do these renewable investments represent? according to reuters, exxon will

spend roughly $30 billion in year -- $30 billion this year -- in capital expenditures. that's exxon's capital budget. investments in green technologies round to zero percent. -- of exxon's 2020 capital expenditures. you see the ads, but that investment they call it rounds to zero percent of exxonmobil's capital investments. b.p. will spend more than $15 billion in capital expenditures. its renewable energy investments -- 3%. 3% of that.

i challenge exxon to disprove that it spends more on advertisements touting its renewable investments than it does on the renewable investments themselves. these investments are a prop for an advertising campaign. like the potemkin villages that were built for the czar when he was taken out of moscow to go see how happy the peasants were, and they built phony villages near the railroad with dressed-up peasants to dance and wave at the czar. so that he wouldn't know that revolution was coming, that if you arey and anger a inch -- that fury and ranger rage through his country. you go through national airport right now, you see the most foul

nonsense up on the walls of that airport designed to convince people passing through national airport in our nation's capital that these companies are responsible about climate change. people walking in forests looking natural, these phony baloney investments designed to prop up ad campaigns. they are a menace in the p.r. space. you can see why the guardian won't take this poison any longer. for decades these ads blared, these phony articles hit the newspapers. their paid-for pundits hit the talk shows just as the fossil fuel companies pollutes our atmosphere and our oceans. while they did this, they knew better than anyone when they

were causing. back in 1982, exxon projected that by 2019 atmospheric co2 would reach between 390 and 420 parts per million. sure enough, as 2019 drew to a close, guess where carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was? it had just crossed 410 parts per million. they predicted this. but they were right. but instead of acting on what they knew, they ran all this public relations nonsense -- this has been the atmosphere carbon dioxide climb. instead of reacting to this in a responsible way and trying to really do something with renewable fuels, they did fake renewable investments to prop up

advertising campaigns, to convince the public that they're on it -- that's the phrase right now for the american petroleum institute -- don't worry, don't get mad, don't get involved, we're ton. and then they shower this body with money and threats powered up by citizens united from the five republican judges across the street there. not only did big oil correctly model this increase in co2 in our atmosphere that their product would cause, they also understood what this meant. they predicted the hotter temperatures. they predicted the melting ice sheets. they predicted the rising seas that louisiana and rhode island are so menaced by. they predicted the massive

damage that climate change would cause. exxon knew its business was ultimately toxic. -- to our planet. and the exxon c.e.o. who led them through this, the craftsman and c.e.o. of so many of these campaigns of lies, now sits happily on the board of j.p. morgan. j.p. morgan, who claims to be seriously and sincerely interested in climate response. j.p. morgan, a major investor who is being warned over and over again, by now more than 30 sovereign banks, of the danger of an economic crash from this carbon bubble popping.

they give the man who led this campaign of lies sanctuary and fees on their board. so what's the purpose of spending all that money? the reason big oil spends billions on its is $to implant -- on it's ads is to implant favorable protections on what robert brulle calls the collective unconscious. its other project is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and on elections to control the politics of climate change and to assure that republicans block any serious efforts to limit carbon pollution. that is a scheme that deserves infamiliary. and it is a -- infamiliar knee. and it a scheme being

perpetrated as i speak right now today. right now the american petroleum institute, the largest trade association for the oil and gas industry, has a seven-figure ad campaign called we're on it. they run ads obstruction of justice the internet, on tv -- they run ads on the internet, on tv designed to fool the public and policymakers that the oil and gas industry is on its carbon and methane emissions problem. not only are they not on it, they're cheating about reporting their methane leaks. this is an ad in "the washington post's" energy 202 newsletter just last week. let's create climate solutions together, contense from the american petroleum institute. -- content from the american petroleum institute.

seriously. a.p.i., which is seriously lobbying against efforts to control methane pollution from oil and gas facilities, they don't even want to report it fairly. job one when trump got in was to take down the methane leakage reporting regulation that was coming. they're lobbying for expansion of offshore drilling and they're lobbying against any price on carbon to offset that $650 billion subsidy, and they want to create climate solutions together? unreal. unreal. in 2006, let's take a walk back into history. in 2006, history in washington, in the united states district court, a judge named implement

ladice cutler wrote a long, long opinion. well over 100 pages. it was a commanding opinion, and it was an opinion that was upheld afterwards by the united states court of appeals. it was an opinion in relation to a case that had been brought by the united states department of justice. the united states department of justice had sued the tobacco industry, and they had asked judge kessler to find the tobacco company's p.r. efforts fraudulent and to order them to knock it off. they were committing fraud, stop it, you're lying to people,

enough already. and in her opinion, judge kessler found in favor of the united states department of justice. indeed, she found the tobacco company's fraudulent p.r. campaigns to have amounted to racketeering. it was a civil racketeering lawsuit. she found that the tobacco industry -- and i'll quote her decision here. quote, the tobacco industry coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective to maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for

cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public, end quote. so swap out cigarettes and plug in fossil fuel and you've described exactly what big oil companies do -- coordinate their public relations scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective to maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for fuel through a scheme to deceive the public. what the fossil fuel industry is doing is precisely the conduct that was racketeering activity when done by the tobacco industry.

but don't expect bill barr's department of justice to pursue any type of legal action like that. the fossil fuel industry is too strong and the fix is too far in this is all rotten stuff. it's gross. it's banana republic behavior. it's not what we expect here in the united states of america, but it's on us. it doesn't have to be this way. we can stop it. we have the power here in the senate to shake off the mallined influence of a desperate and greedy industry and actually tackle the defining issue of our time, like americans should.

so let's have a real debate on a real climate change bill. let's surprise the world and pass something big and bold. let's wake up to the threat of climate change and get ahead of its consequences before the situation becomes irretrievable. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. ms. murkowski: madam president, i have come to the floor this evening to speak in support of nomination of joshua m. kindred to be united states district judge for the district of alaska. we were able to move forward in the first step of confirmation for mr. kindred but i want to take a minute to speak as to why i believe he is well qualified to serve in this capacity and deserves to be supported by the senate with hopefully broad bipartisan support. i'm glad that he's willing to step into a new role for our state. josh kindred comes from anchorage where i'm living, serves as regna for the department of interior. before the joining the department he served as the environmental counsel for the alaska oil and gas association as well as assistant district

attorney and unit supervisor for the state of alaska. he served as law clerk for a chief justice of the supreme court on the state of oregon. one way that you know that mr. kindred has good judgment, he went to the same law school i did, so can't be all bad there. but he earned his juris doctorate from a -- willamette school of law and demonstrated great skills and abilities. but i think it's important to speak to mr. kindred's biographical details to illustrate that his experience is both considerable and it's really relevant. it's directly relevant for this new role that he is seeking. and it's that experience in a host of different areas that matters for our state and i believe will help him as a federal jurist.

mr. kindred's experience in civil, criminal, and administrative law at both the state and the federal levels in both the public sector as well as the private sector is exactly what we should be seeking in a nominee for a court of original jurisdiction such as the u.s. district court for the district of alaska. josh kindred is no stranger to the courtroom. he's got extensive trial experience which is important for operating a courtroom. his background brings a welcomed and valuable understanding of alaska's unique federal laws and landscape. he's got extensive experience in federal lands, mining, natural resource, oil and gas laws, and environmental laws. these are all things, all things that are constantly litigated back home and that apply to so many of the important priorities that we have in alaska. you often hear me talk about the fact that alaska is different, it is unique, and certainly

some of our laws, many of our laws reflect that. not many are truly knowledgeable about ancsa, about anilca. these are critically important to understand, and mr. kindred certainly understands them. that skill set, that operational base of knowledge on alaska specific laws and matters is vital for our state. in addition and perhaps of equal importance, mr. kindred has long called alaska home. he was raised in our local schools. he's raising his young family there. he comes from good family. he's married into good family. he's a good alaskan. he knows alaska. he understands our state well. i'm proud of mr. kindred's continued commitment to public service and his willingness to serve our state. so again, madam president, i would urge the senate to confirm josh kindred. i know that he will do well in his new role as he has done in

all the others that he has taken on. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations, executive calendar 558, 559, 560 and 561. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nominations en bloc. the clerk: nominations, department of state, john niland of illinois to be ambassador to the republic of palou. donald wright of virginia to be ambassador to the republic of tanzania. dorothy shea of north carolina

to be ambassador to the lebanese republic. todd c. chapman of texas to be ambassador to the federative republic of brazil. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate vote en bloc with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motions to reconsider be considered and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, no further motions be in order and any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the nominations are confirmed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk. i ask its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk

will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3275, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be read a second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i have eight 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 unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.j. res. 80 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 80, joint resolution approving the request of the secretary of veterans' affairs for a waiver under section 1703-e-f of title 38,

united states code. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 491 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 491, designating the week beginning february 2, 2020, as national tribal colleges and universities week. the presiding officer: is there any objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the 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: now, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, february 12. 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. finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the kindred nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of all senators, we will vote on the confirmation of the kindred, schelp, kness, and halpern nominations at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> the issue that is most important to me in 2020s taking care making sure we don't go to war and that we are we are working closely with our allies tickets secure the united states >> finance reform as candidates take on wall street and being able to stand up to wall street investors. >> justice weatherby equality addressing racism within our government and issues like -- and things of that sort. >> i'm mostly concerned about social programs, the maintaining of social programs such as social security. i know everybody swears on the bible they are going to touch it but you know that's going to be the next thing they are going to try to dismantle and i would say that his cause number one. >> i am most interested in

ensuring that kids in school and adult there are no programs that are suffering and they will all get funded as best they can. we don't want to take arts education out in the schools and keep children culturally aware, incredibly and important to each one of us. >> voices from the road on c-span. now conversation with colorado democratic governor jared paul said he sat on recently with political reporters as a news organization posted governor shum across the country and its state solutions conference in washington d.c.. this is just under 40 minutes. [applause] >> hello everyone. good morning and thank you everyone for sticking