Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate 11022017 20171102

We were certainly lucky to have a professor of his caliber. Professor bibas then took a position on the faculty of the university of Pennsylvania Law School where he has been teaching since. Professor bibas has been prolific in his academic writings, publishing numerous articles on all aspects of criminal law. His Academic Work culminated in the publication of his book entitled the machinery of criminal justice. That book was published 2012. In this book and many of his articles, professor bibas criticized the current model of bureaucratic assemblyline justice and americas high incarceration rate. Much of his work has been devoted to finding solutions to these problems. His Academic Work has certainly had an impact on the law. In fact, professor bibas is one of the most cited law professors in judicial opinions. One study shows he is the 15th most cited legal scholar by total judicial opinions, and he is the fifth most cited in the area of criminal law. Not bad for a relatively young professor. Professor bibas has also had a positive impact on colleagues and students. The Judiciary Committee received a letter from 121 law professors throughout our country, representing a diverse range of viewpoints. These professors support professor bibas nomination, pointing to his and this quote comes from the letter his influential contributions to criminal law and procedure scholarship as well as his fairmindedness, conscientiousness and personal integrity, end of quote. Professor bibas also received a letter in support of his nomination from many colleagues at the university of pennsylvania. They stated that he has been, quote, an outstanding scholar, teacher, and colleague at penn, end of quote, after the word colleague. Professor bibas also has extensive litigation and a lot of experience in litigation. He is currently the director of the university of Pennsylvania Law Schools Supreme Court clinic. In this role, he and his students have represented numerous litigants who could not otherwise afford topflight counsel. He has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, and he obtained a significant victory in the landmark case of padilla versus kentucky, which established a defendants sixth amendment right to Accurate Information about deportation before pleading guilty. One of our Supreme Court justices, ruth bader ginsburg, in a personal letter to professor bibas that the Judiciary Committee received called him one of the, quote, very best lawyers presenting cases to the court. Its nice if you are considered kind of a strict constructionist that you get a letter like that from one of the more activist members of the Supreme Court. Some of my democratic colleagues criticized professor bibas during his confirmation hearing for two really isolateed events in a long and illustrious career that he has had. First, democrats criticized professor bibas for prosecuting a minor theft of only 7 when he was an assistant u. S. Attorney, and this case took place nearly 20 years ago. But it was professor bibas supervisor who made the decision to charge the defendant and of course required an underling by the name of bibas to pursue the case even after it started to fall apart. In his hearing, nowprofessor bibas readily acknowledges that his defendant should not have been prosecuted, and the professor stated this to our committee. Quote i learned from that mistake, and as a scholar, i have dedicated my career to trying to diagnose and prevent the causes of such errors in the future. Inadequate brady, that would be brady disclosure, new prosecutor syndrome, tunnel vision, jumping to conclusions, partisan mind sets. And i have testified before this committee on those very issues, and so i made a mistake. I apologize. I learned from it. And i have tried to improve the Justice System going forward. End of quote. Some of my colleagues have also criticized professor bibas for a single article that he wrote but never published. This article endorsed limited form of Corporal Punishment as an alternative to lengthy prison sentence, but professor bibas reconsidered this idea soon after completing the idea, he concluded that it was a bad idea and did not publish it. He completely disallowed the position in his book published shortly thereafter. When asked about Corporal Punishment at his hearing, professor bibas stated, quote, it is wrong. It is not american. It is something i its not something i advocate. I categorically reject it, end quote. Additionally, professor bibas positioned on Corporal Punishment position on Corporal Punishment was well intended. He was motivated to address overall harsh and unproductively long prison sentences. As he said at his hearing, he wanted to offer an answer to the question. The question is this quote is there some way, any way we can avoid the hugely destructive effects of imprisonment both on prisoners own lives and on the families and friends in the communities, end of quote, end of his question. In the time since professor bibas wrote the article, he has offered more Creative Solutions to the disruptions caused by lengthy prison sentences. As an example, instead of suffering through forced indolence, prisoners could work and develop workrelated skills in anticipation of their release from prison. Professor bibas scholarship, of course, as i have stated and quoted from, is a testimony to his devotion, to the rule of law, and the notion of equal justice before the law. Its very clear that he cares very deeply about how the criminal Justice System impacts defendants, victims, families, and entire communities. As you can tell, im very confident that professor bibas will make an excellent judge on the Third Circuit court of appeals. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from maryland. Mr. Cardin mr. President , President Trump will be leaving tomorrow for a lengthy trip to asia. He will be visiting japan, the republic of korea, and china. And in each of those countries, we expect that the Number One National security issue that will be talked about is north korea. North koreas dangerous activities are certainly putting not only the region but the Global Community at risk. They have a nuclear capacity. They currently have the ability to explode a nuclear device, and theyre working on Delivery Systems that could very well reach not just the region but come into the United States. They are violating international commitments. They have done dozens of tests this year alone, all in violation of their international commitments. We have had a strong policy to try to isolate north korea. The u. S. Has led in the imposition of sanctions. We have introduced this year and passed the countering americas adversaries through sanctions act. It passed this body by a 982 vote. I note that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is on the floor, and he was one of the strong architects of that legislation. We have also seen the United Nations Security Council pass resolutions 2270, 2371, 2375. The president has issued executive order 13810. We have been there, asking for regular enforcement of sanctions. We could do more, and one of the points i hope the president will be talking about during his trip is to rigorously enforce the sanctions that are out there, and as i see there is activity taking place in the banking committee. We have legislation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If additional Sanction Authority is needed, lets do that, thats important. But what additional things can we do and what should the president be promoting as he visits asia . First, let me give you a few unacceptable alternatives. We could not lead with military intervention. The casualties could be astronomical. The technology to develop Nuclear Weapons would still remain, and our allies are certainly not in agreement with that policy. There is no Congressional Authority for the u. S. Of force. A second alternative thats not acceptable is just continue the current course. North korea is developing a Delivery System that will threaten not just japan and the republic of korea, but also guam and the United States. We will see an arms race if we do not effectively stop north Koreas Nuclear program. President trumps statement in my view made the challenges even more dramatic. His america alone statements isolate america, make it more difficult for us to get the type of support we need. His reckless statements, i think, make it more likely rather than less likely he will use a military option. What we need is a surge in diplomacy. A surge in diplomacy can very well start with a meeting between president xi of china and President Trump of the United States. We have a common agenda. Both countries, china and the United States, does not want to see a nuclear north korea. Both china and the United States recognize that the kim jongun regime or leadership in north korea is unrelyle. Were both looking for an off ramp so we dont need to use a military option. And china has the capacity to turn the pressure on north korea through sanctions that could change the equation in north korea. China and north korea have a common agenda. Both want to preserve the regime of kim jongun. Kim jongun, for obvious reasons, china because they do not want to see the unified Korean Peninsula under western influence. Our objective is for north korea to give up its Nuclear Weapons. China needs to be convinced that our objective is the same as theirs. With that, they could instill greater pressure on north korea and diplomacy could work. What should be our objective . We have got to be realistic. In the short term, it should be containment. Freeze the current program. Stop the testing. Make it clear that we cannot allow this program these programs to continue. Ultimately, we want to see a nonnuclear korea peninsula. Now, we know that in the past, in the 1994 Framework Agreement with north korea lasted for eight years, so there is an ability to make progress, but we have to develop confidence between the parties. In conjunction with this, mr. President , let me just urge us not lose sight of the north korean people. Lets continue our focus on the human rights problems in the country. Lets work with our allies, particularly japan and the republic of korea, and lets enforce rigorously the sanctions until progress is made. We can achieve an alternative outcome in north korea, but it requires u. S. Leadership and u. S. And President Trump needs to engage on that issue. We need confidencebuilding, and we need to make sure that we make progress. Time is not on our side, but there is still time before to make progress. Without a diplomatic surge, theres only unacceptable options. Our goal should be a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous northeast asia community. With that, mr. President , i would yield the floor. The presiding officer under the previous order, all time is expired. The question occurs on the Stephanos Bibas nomination. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . Hearing none, the yeas are 53, the nays are 43, the namings is confirmed. The nomination is confirmed. Mr. Heller mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from nevada. Mr. Heller i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the bibas nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senates action. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Heller i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Heller thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , this week we currently have the unique opportunity to move forward on promises we made to the American People last year confirming judges and providing tax relief to hardworking americans. The American People sent us to congress to complete this critical work and we must stop at nothing do it. Now, weve already taken significant steps to address both of these issues by confirming 13 judges with five more this week and passing a budget with instructions for tax reform. Theres still much more it that we need to do and i stand ready to stay here until that job is done. Most people cant go home until their work is finished. Mr. President , i dont think we should either. Imagine dropping your car off at the auto mechanic and instead of staying to finish the job they leave at 3 00 p. M. And go home because thats their scel youll, yet schedule, yet you have to pay them for a full days work. We need to work as much as possible to ensure the federal judiciary is filled with judges that will uphold the constitution and bring us closer to providing tax relief to the American People. We need to have a fully occupied, fully functioning federal judiciary to ensure that americans Constitutional Rights are upheld. In almost ten months we started started to address the issue of judicial vacancies by confirming 13 judges, most notably, justice gorsuch, who has already served as a strong, conservative voice on the Supreme Court. As al fellow westerner, i was proud to vote for such a qualified judge in our nations highest court. Beyond the vacancy, beyond the Supreme Court, there are vacancies at all levels of our federal judiciary, and we cannot forget the importance of every single court that makes up the federal system. We must prioritize confirming judges to fill these openings, especially those deemed judicial emergencies of the fact emergencies. The fact that we have so many judicial emergencies is incredibly concerning and should be a wakeup call to awr senators, especially to all senators, especially those slowing down this important process. The president is continuing to send us wellqualified nominees and chairman grassley has done an excellent job of moving nominees through the committee process. Im especially encouraged that week we are confirming five more judges including four Circuit Court judges. Thats the pace that when we need to keep. If that means working 247, mr. President , count me in. We cannot allow obstructionism from the on the other side of the aisle from the other side of the aisle to prevent us from filling vacancies. It is clear when judges are brought to the floor by a healthy majority, the gridlock being caused is purely political. Because of this, leadership is having to file cloture on these nominees and those across the aisle are running the debate clock instead of actually debating. We have what is known as a onehour rule in the senate and i think it is time to enforce it. Members are entitled to their opinions and as a deliberative body, we should debate nominees, but if youre going to debate a nominee, i think you need to come down here and speak on them. You cant just hide behind your desk and run the debate clock. If you have a problem with the with a nominee, come down to the floor and voice your concerns. If youre not willing to do this, you shouldnt hold this nominee hostage to an artificial clock. We should use debate time on a nominee to debate the nominee. If there is no more debate, we should vote on that nominee and move on to the next one. The constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial. As a body that makes that constitutional right possible, we have a critical responsibility and we must do whatever it takes to fulfill this duty. In order to deliver swift justice throughout the country, these seats need to be filled. Im wredy to work day and ready to work day and night, weekends, holidays, to do what nevadans sent me to accomplish. We should work through the week of thanksgiving. Hardworking americans dont go home until their work is complete and neither should we. That work also includes reforming our tax code, providing desperately needed relief to the middle class. Today chairman brady of the ways and Means Committee released a draft of their tax bill which is another enormous step forward in providing meaningful tax relief to nevadans and other hardworking americans across the country. Middleclass tax relief is particularly critical to the residents of my home state of nevada, whether its the mother who doesnt receive child support, works full time and trying to make ends meet or the worker who is working hard to the get a Small Business off the ground and wondering if he will ever catch a break and be able to hire his first employee. I ton hear from i continue to hear from diligent hardworking families who are struggling to cover their expenses and get ahead in life. The american, previously achievable through hard work and sheer determination and playing by the rules feels like it is slipping away. Thats because far too long americans have faced stagnant wages and slow Economic Growth. Under the failed economic policies of the previous administration, we suffered through eight years of historically low Economic Growth. In those eight years we didnt have a single year in which the economy grew by 3 . As a result, wages and workers suffered. As a result, job creation suffered. And as a result, middleclass americans like you and your neighbors suffered. We can still bear the scars of the obama era economic policies today. Median household intersection in nevada are incomes in nevada are 7,000 lower than they were ten years ago. Families in nevada are more likely to live paycheck to paycheck than families in every other state. Its fair to say that in nevada the recession has never really ended. To me this is unacceptable and im doing everything in my power to right the economic wrongs created by the previous administration. Under the leadership of the new administration we are starting to see our economy improve. There are positive signs everywhere. Last week the Commerce Department announced that for a Second Quarter in a row the economy had grown at least 3 . This impressive growth occurred despite hurricanes that destroyed homes of our friends an colleagues down in texas and colleagues down in texas and florida. 3 Economic Growth is possible under the leadership of President Trump and a unified republican government. Just think about how much more we can add to this growth by passing comprehensive tax reform. As a member of that tax writing committee, ive been working with my colleagues to craft a tax package that accomplishes three major goals. First, create more jobs. Second, increase wages, and, finally, third, boost americas competitiveness worldwide. What does tax relief mean to you, the average nevadan working hard and save for a secure retirement, it means cutting your taxes so you can keep more of your hard earned money. It means bigger Child Tax Credit to help confront the increasing costs of raising children, it means a simpler and fairer tax code that you yourself can understand. Lower rates for business means more jobs, higher wages, and growth in our communities, all of which will benefit you. Taken together all of these things mean you will have a profound increase in your takehome pay and your economic opportunities. In a recent study of a white house study of economic advisors, found that by reducing the Corporate Tax rate by 15 alone would increase Household Incomes by an average of 4,000. A similar study by a Boston University economist put the increase at 3,500. I think the average american can do a lot with an additional 3,500 to 4,000 in his or her bank account. As the son of a school cook and auto mechanic, i understand the displayed in hard work that goes into every dollar and every paycheck. Im working to see that you have more of it in your back pocket. Im confident that well fulfill these promises but that will take a commitment from our colleagues to stay here and work. In addition to overhauling the tax code and confirming judges, we have many other significant legislative responsibilities to complete and i believe that ee must spend as much time as necessary, including working through the november constituent work period to fulfill our commitment to the American People. With that, mr. President , i yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call . Oo quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. Mr. Sasse are we in a quorum call . I ask unanimous consent that we suspend the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Sasse thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i rise on the floor today with a simple message we should completely dispel with the fiction that the American Bar Association is a fair and impartial arbiter of facts. This is a sad reality, but it is the reality. Lets back up. We in this body have taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. Considering judicial nominees who have Lifetime Appointments is the most important thing that this senate will do over the weeks ahead. It demands the full attention of every single member, republican, democrat, and independent. This ought to be an opportunity for this body to pause and stand back from the frenzy of daytoday media cycles and cable news shouting and recommit ourselves to basic american civics and to some very basic american ideas. The idea that our three branches of government have three separate roles. The idea that we in the article 1 branch, the lawmakers, make the laws because we stand before the people and can be hired and fired. If the people are going to be in charge in our system, they need to be able to fire the people who make the laws. The idea that judges are explicitly not to make laws. The idea that judges do not have r. And d. , republican and democrat, behind their names, but rather that judges should be fairly and dispassionately ruling on the law and the facts. And the idea that all of us, temporary Public Servants, although the judiciary has their Lifetime Appointments, have the calling to be upholding and defending a system of limited government, again through our three differentiated roles. Unfortunately, over the last few days in this body, its become clear that some of us are tempted to outsource our constitutional duties to an outside organization. That organization, the American Bar Association, purports to be a neutral arbiter but is frankly twisting its ratings process to drive a political agenda in an important nomination pending before this body. Im referring specifically to the Smear Campaign of the a. B. A. Against steve graz, a qualified Public Servant who has been nominated by the president to the eighth Circuit Court of appeals. Steve graz has decades of Honorable Service in nebraska, including more than a decade as the chief Deputy Attorney general of my state. Mr. Graz is in fact eminently equal fade for the Circuit Court bench, as has been testified to by republicans and democrats across our state. But lets set the scene first for the a. B. A. s silly decision earlier this week to announce that they regard steve graz as not qualified. Ill highlight three specific items. First, we should discuss the two people who interviewed mr. Graz and recognize that, unfortunately, they are blatant partisans with a sad track record of hackery. Second, the a. B. A. Is trying to paint mr. Graz as an extremist simply because he did his job as the chief Deputy Attorney general of nebraska and defended nebraskans and nebraska laws that wanted to outlaw the most barbaric of abortion practices partialbirth abortion. Third, we should talk about the obvious bigotry of cultural liberals evident in their interview process of mr. Graz when they asked him repeated questions about nonlegal matters that had nothing to do with the claims of competence of the a. B. A. First, lets talk about the two reviewers. The lead reviewer for the Bar Association on the graz nomination was arkansas law professor sixth in a nance. This is an encore performance because in 2006 she opposed Supreme Court Justice Samuel alito because of his, quote, prolife agenda and she argued that made him unqualified to sit on the u. S. Supreme court. I wonder if there is anyone in this body who rejected her view then and voted to confirm now Justice Alito who would now somehow echo her claims that Justice Alito is not qualified to sit in the seat that he now holds . Hopefully we as a body are better than that. The a. B. A. s second reviewer, lawrence pullgrum is an attorney from San Francisco. He has a long track record of support for leftwing candidates and aggressive political organizations. These are the reviewers who are setting themselves up as dispassionate umpires calling balls and strikes. Its hogwash. These are not umpires. These are folks in the starting lineup of the a. B. A. , an organization that explicitly endorsed proabortion policies beginning two decades ago. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with nance and pullgrums advocacy. They enjoy First Amendment rights just like all 320 million americans do. There is nothing wrong with advocacy. Whats wrong here is advocacy disguised as objective analysis. And thats whats actually happening in the case of the grasz nomination. This brings us to our second point about the a. B. A. s treatment of mr. Grasz. When he read their letter, it makes many anonymous claims that some people supposedly support the authors great worry about graszs alleged deeply held social views. But the closest thing the a. B. A. Ever comes to stating a fact let alone producing a smoking gun is the fact that as the chief Deputy Attorney general of the state of nebraska, mr. Grasz did the job of the chief Deputy Attorney general of the state of nebraska. Thats not news. Mr. President , it is no secret that the vast majority of nebraskans are prolife and, thus, it is no surprise that our states laws reflect this. In the 1990s nebraska outlawed the most horrifying of all abortion procedures, the partialbirth abortion. And lest anyone seek comfort behind emif i euphemisms like choice, lets be very clear what the people of nebraska were outlawing. The people of my state banned a gruesome and grotesque practice where a doctor partially delivers an unborn baby and while that baby girls head is the only thing still in the mothers wound, the doctor would then collapse the babys consul. If theres anyone in this body who believes that thats a good and a moral act that its a good and a moral thing to deliver that baby girl and then moments before her complete and full entry into the world, to vacuum out her brains, please come to the floor, because few people believe that that is a good or a moral or a just act, or at least few would admit it openly. In fact, thats why just a few years later, federal law followed nebraskas law and outlawed partialbirth abortion. But in the 1990s, when nebraska first outlawed that partialbirth abortion procedure, many proabortion advocates brought suit, and steve as chief Deputy Attorney general of nebraska, defended the law of our state. Which again is now the federal law. He defended that law because it was his job. He defended the law because thats what the people of nebraska wanted when they said that this unspeakably barbaric procedure had no place in our state. And now, thankfully, it has no place in our nation. Anyone who would paint steve as an extremist needs to take a long, hard, and honest look at what he did as chief Deputy Attorney general of nebraska defending the laws of the state of nebraska. Third, i know that the a. B. A. Has an augustsounding nail augustsounding name, a but heres what they did in their interview of mr. Grasz. They asked him what kind of schools do your kids go to . Dont really understand the connection to their legal interview. When they found out that his kids akids attended a religious institution, they asked him why they would go to a religious institution. Well, it turns out in my state, lots of lutherans and catholics send their kids to religious schools. They began to refer to mr. Grasz in the interview as you people. They would frame questions to him and ask about, you people. He finally paused and said, can you tell me who you people are because he didnt know whether it was prolife people, people who send their kids to religious schools, maybe just nebraskans. They informed him that they were using the term you people to mean conservatives or republicans. Third, in the course of their time with mr. Grasz, their interview went from actual legal questions to just asking him more and more detail about his prolife views. Again, they have nothing to do with the decision between sitting on the bench as someone who applies facts in law and someone who in a private capacity or in his public capacity as the chief Deputy Attorney general of nebraska had been defending the laws of the state of nebraska. Ed whalen is the president of the Public Policy center and is a jurisprudence expert and has been covering the a. B. A. Case and their judgment on mr. Grasz this week closely. I would like to read a few of his comments. Quote, the a. B. A. Contends that grasz is not able to sufficiently differentiate between the role is of advocate and adjudicator. The a. B. A. Contends that there is an inconsistency between his respect for stare decisis and the views that he expressed in a 1999 law review article understand that the a. B. A. Says he continues to adhere to. Selectively quoting this article be the a. B. A. Faults him for his supposed, quote, suggestion this a lower court judge was entitled in dieing the issue that is, whether a partially born fetus has the right to life under the 14th amendment, to question the jurisprudence of a superior court. But the law review article that the a. B. A. Is criticizing in that same article grasz states on pages 27 and 28, quote, lower federal courts are obliged to follow clear Legal Precedents regardless of whether it may seem unwise or even morally repugnant to do so. However, a court need not extend questionable jurisprudence into new areas or supply it in areas outside of where there is a clear precedent. Read together, these sentences set forth an uncontroversial position. In order to create the controversy, however, the a. B. A. Entirely omits the first sentence and then pretendtends t the second sentence, rather than setting forth a general proposition is referring to the Supreme Courts rulings in roe and casey, quote close. Roe applies that to the question whether roe v. Wade speaks to the legal status of a partially born human being but as much as the a. B. A. Would have their reader think, he isnt concocting any special rule for abortion precedents. Skipping ahead, the a. B. A. States that members, quote, of the bar shared instances in which mr. Graszs contact was gratuitously rude, close quote. It does not bother to give a single example of rude example by grasz so its claim is entirely impossible to address. As an aside, this is again quoting whalen, according to larry tribe, as Josh Blackmun reminds you Sonia Sotomayor is this a reputation for being something after bully when she was nominated to the Supreme Court. It was whalen by the way who uncovered and published tribes letter to president bush on this matter. The a. B. A. Alleges that there was a certain amount of caginess and at times a lack of disclosure on gras zs part with respect to some deficit issues unearthed. But again it provides no specifics and no illustrations so its impossible to assess whether grasz can be fairly faulted here. Something very fishy is going on. And theyre pulling up from whalen, i would comment that my senior senator, deb fischer and i from nebraska, both of whom were advising President Trump on the selection of steve grasz for this eighth circuit vacancy, received literally boxes of letters from nebraska lawyers, both republican and democrat, for months in the moment after the eighth circuit vacancy appeared, and at no point did we hear either verbally from people that we know in the state or in our interview process or in the boxes of letters, at no point did we hear of any rudeness on the part of mr. Grasz, and yet the a. B. A. Is judging him not equal aid for the bench based on Anonymous Sources that say hes rude without a single example. Theres not one example. Its an embarrassing letter from the a. B. A. Folks should actually folks in this body who would be tempted to take the a. B. A. s judgment seriously should read the letter. Its filled with anonymous claims that once he was rude to someone and they have no examples. Back to ed whalen. Reviewer nances strong ideological bias is not unfamiliar. Given the absence persistent complaints about her inability to separate his judging from his, quote, prolife agenda, close quote, it is notable that letter against alito complains about the impact that he would have on womens reproductive rights. Nance also signed a letter arguings that the governments interests in protecting Womens Health and reproductive freedom meant that even religiously affiliated organizations like Little Sisters of the poor should be required to provide contraceptive coverage including drugs and devices that can also operate in a an aborted matter,o the withstanding their own views on what constitutes illicit immoral evil. Nance tweets also offer some revealing incites. Nance retweeted the question whether Justice Scalia would have been in the majority in dred scott and she found amusing or insightful the observation that, quote, constitutional constructionists want women to have all the rights that they had in 1787, quote close. Yet this is just the sort of fine and balanced legal mind with its great grasp of conservative judicial principles that the a. B. A. Has put in charge of evaluating judicial nominees. Finally, the a. B. A. s supposed check against a hostile lead investigator is to have a second investigator conduct a supplemental evaluation of the nominee in those instances in which the lead investigator has recommended a notqualified rating. So if youre the head of this committee, whom would you select to ensure that ideological bias has not warped your process . Probably not a very liberal activist lawyer from San Francisco, but thats exactly what the a. B. A. Did in this case. Lawrence pullgrum is a member of the lawyers for civil rights in the San Francisco area, close quote. P mr. , we have a crisis of Institutional Trust in this country that should concern all of user. Our job in seeking to preserve and protect and uphold the constitution and a constitution focused on limited government is because our founders believed that the vast majority of the most interesting questions in life happen in the private sector, not just forprofit entities but primarily Civil Society, families and neighborhoods and notforprofit organizations and religious institutions arent the rotary club and philanthropies. The most interesting things in life are not in government. Government provides a framework for ordered liberty, but once you have that framework, once youre free from violence, youre free to live your life in all of these fully human fit community ways in your local community. Our job in this body is to not only pass good legislation and repeal bad legislation and to advise and consent on the president s nominees to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed by the article 1 branch, but our job is also to speak to a constitutional system where a separation of powers exists so that power is not consolidated in washington and so that theres room for the full flowering of social community are across our great land. Soy the decline of trust in our institutions is something that should trouble all of us. Our job isnt merely about government but also teaming our kids about the constitution and basic civics. So i ache when private Sector Institutions and when Civil Society institutions see the trust in those institutions decline. But one of the things thats clearly happening in our time is that the a. B. A. Is becoming much less a serious organization and much more an activist organization advancing a specific political agenda. I would hope the a. B. A. Is due to appear before the Judiciary Committee in two weeks to explain this interview process and why they gave this judgment on mr. Grasz with so few facts and so little evidence and so much proabortion sel sell la fr. I would hope when the a. B. A. Comes before the Judiciary Committee, it recrantses of this very silly opinion of not qualified of a man who is eminently qualified and is going to serve very well the people of not just the eighth circuit but this country on the Circuit Court of appeals. I would hope that the a. B. A. Would recant this silly judgment. But if they do not, i think we should recognize that the fiction of the a. B. A. As a serious organization that ought to be taken seriously as a neutral and partial arbiter of qualifications for the federal bench should be dispensed with and we in this body whove actually taken an oath to three separate but equal branches with differentiated roles of legislating, executing, and ultimately judging would continue to affirm that distinction and that we should want judges who do not try to be super legislators but seek to attend themselves to the facts and the law as is indeed the calling of article 3 branch judges. Thank you, mr. President. I would note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk shall call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from delaware. A senator mr. President , are we currently in a quorum call . The presiding officer we are. Mr. Coons mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Coons mr. President , i come to the floor today to join several of my colleagues in raising concerns about nominations to the federal judiciary and the senates role in carrying out its constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. From my Vantage Point as a member of the Judiciary Committee, i can see all too clearly that an alarming trend of more and more extreme judicial candidates appearing before us has grown, that more extreme judicial candidates are being nominated and that the safeguards here in the senate that are important to our vetting process are being threatened. Let me start by giving a simple overview of whats happening. First, in terms of the speed at which we are considering critical Lifetime Appointments to some of the most central courts in our whole federal judicial system, just this week my republican colleagues have brought forward four Circuit Court nominees. Four nominees in one week, beginning to end. Thats more than the number of Circuit Court nominees that were confirmed in the entire first year of president obamas presidency. More importantly to me than the speed is the quality of our process of reviewing these important nominations. The American Bar Association has issued unanimous notqualified ratings for two current judicial nominees. That hasnt happened in over a decade, since 2006. The American Bar Association is not a partisan or political group. Founded in 1878, the a. B. A. Is a National Professional organization with over 400,000 attorney members. The a. B. A. s uncontroversial objectives are to serve its members and prove the Legal Professional, enhanced diversity and secure the rule of law in our nation. Its contributions to the Legal Profession are significant. Its the a. B. A. That acredits law schools and establishes model ethical codes. Additionally, since 1953, when president eisenhower invited the a. B. A. To provide specific timely input on candidates for federal judgeships, the a. B. A. Has evaluated nominees for professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament. This is a rigorous process that involves collecting impartial peerreview evaluations of candidates. Its startling that less than a year into this administration two nominees have already received notqualified ratings from the a. B. A. And two more nominees are under consideration of whats called a sect evaluator. This is concerning. The a. B. A. Doesnt take giving a notqualified rating lightly. Any time an e evaluator is considering recommending not qualified a second evaluator is brought in to conduct an independent review. I believe all nominees to lifetime article 3 appointments on the federal bench should have the competence, integrity and temperament to do the important work that federal judges are called on to perform. The nominees we are seeing not only raise concerns about professional qualifications and the speed with which they have been processed, many of the president s recent candidates are notable for their polarizing, divisive, offensive rhetoric rather than the depth of their legal experience or the quality of thairl their judicial temperaments. We have considered candidates on the Judiciary Committee who have blocked at length in blockedh suggesting our former president wasnt born in the United States. Another said mama pelosi should be called. Another called Supreme Court Justice Kennedy a, quote, judicial prostitute. Compared abortion to slavery. Complained americans overreacted to sandy hook. Repeated antigay slurs and said transgender children are proof that satans plan is working. Many al arming even extreme reports are in the record of folks brought forward for confirmation. This isnt about party allegiance, about being a republican or democrat, a conservative or liberal. This is about having the judgment, the temperament to be a federal judge. The mechanisms we have for completely evaluating nominees are today being strained. The American Bar Association has been cut out of some of the white houses efforts, its prenomination vetting process. That means when the a. B. A. Conducts its evaluation and seeks feedback from a candidates peers they discover the nomination has already been announced by the white house. If the candidate has already been chosen, understandably lawyers are reluctant to provide candid feedback when they know a potential federal judge has already been nominated. Additionally, its concerning weve had hearings in the Judiciary Committee before the a. B. A. Rating process is completed. When that happens, it prevents the a. B. A. , our professional organization of attorneys, from being called to testify to explain a not qualified rating at a hearing where a nominee is considered. In fact, just today, earlier today we had two judicial nominees listed on our agenda who do not yet have an a. B. A. Rating. Im not suggesting every senator needs to vote in lock step with the a. B. A. Rating. But i feel strongly the a. B. A. s evaluation must be available to senators before theyre asked to vote on a nominee for a lifetime position as a federal judge. Another tool thats under attack that is a centuryold tradition of the Judiciary Committee is the socalled blue slip. This is a practice that allows the two home state senators to give a positive or negative recommendation on a nominee before they receive a hearing and are considered for lifetime tenure. It allows each senator to approve the judicial nominations for vacancies in their home states or in the Circuit Courts where a seat is traditionally associated with that home seat. By requiring blue slips be returned before a nominee is considered, each senator is afforded the courtesy to evaluate whether or not a judicial nominee will meet the needs of his or her constituents and the priorities and values of his home state. Its an important tool for ensuring the white house of either party consults with senators about the judicial candidates the president is considering for nomination. In the end this tool promotes consensus candidates by ensuring all senators views are taken into account irrespective of partisan registration. As a senator from delaware, a state with two current judicial vacancies, im one of the busiest District Courts in america, one that only has four active judgeships. Ive been focused on working collaboratively with the white house in a productive manner that ensures my state gets qualified consensus nominees from the white house, and im pleased to report that senator carper and i have had a very positive experience so far working with the white house on these potential nominations. And its my hope well soon see nominees i can support without reservation. But the blue slip process ensures this consultative constructive experience is the rule not the exception. It is unfortunate this blue slip practice is under sustained attack. I believe we should maintain it for all senators in the best interest of this institution and our federal judiciary. Article 3 judges, as ive said, serve with lifetime tenure. They decide issues of civil rights, of personal freedom, commercial disputes of enormous value, even life and death. These judges can and should on occasion also serve as checks on president ial power over reach. In the past few months article 3 judges have enjoined executive orders including the socalled travel ban, the transgender military ban and the decision to strip funding from sanctuary cities. We should be advancing nominees who can earn broad support for members of both parties, nominees with the experience to handle some of the most complex and demanding judicial issues of our time. Nominees who have demonstrated the temperament to administer justice fairly. These nominations matter. The nominees who will fill the 140 current judicial vacancies on district and Circuit Courts across our country will play a Critical Role in either protecting or undermining the Constitutional Rights that are the bedrock of our republic. Our courts must continue to be the place where everyone is treated fairly and the legal rights of our citizens can be vindicated. Mr. President , i want to close by calling on my colleagues to reconsider how were conducting the judicial nominee process. This race to confirm as many nominees as possible is not how we respect the rule of law, one of the our most treasured american values. Come to the floor multiple times since the beginning of this congress to convey and speak about the importance of bipartisanship, and i will continue to do that today. As weve seen in important Public Policy matters from the Health Care Debate to the current debate on tax reform, republicans and democrats need to Work Together to get things done. Purely partisan processes wont succeed in this or future congresses. We have to Work Together to protect our democracy and our rule of law. Mr. President , id also like to note today sam clovus withdrew as the nominee for chief scientist at the usda. Im not here to comment on any connections to any ongoing investigations or other social issues, but rather id like to comment on a simple concern i have had since his nomination, namely that mr. Clovus is unqualified to serve as a chief scientist. Lacking any professional training in the hard sciences. This is not just my opinion, but a matter of a statutory requirement. It is a requirement in statute to have a background in science. Science is critically important to agriculture, and this is another federal agency that depends on good science. Given the serious challenges facing americas farmers and our food system from pollinator declines to deteriorating soil health to a change in climate, usda Science Mission is extremely important. As someone whose Home State University has a vibrant department of agriculture, as someone who knows the very broad range of federal funding from usda that supports agriculturerelated scientific research, the usdas critical in helping provide our farmers with the information they need to implayoff improve plant and animal and renew practices on the farms. This could all be at risk if the agencys head of science has no relevant scientific training and even rejects current scientific thinking. I believe science, not mere opinion or partisan attitude, should underpin our decisions when it comes to our nations agricultural policy. Its my hope the administration will now go back and recommend a nominee who is scientifically trained and who cares deeply about the role of science in our nations agriculture. Thank you. With that, mr. President , i yield the floor. And suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer and the clerk shall call the roll. Quorum call mr. Mcconnell mr. President. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell are we in a quorum call . The presiding officer we are. Mr. Mcconnell i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations the executive calendar 409, 410, 411, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429, and 431. The presiding officer without objection, the clerk will report the nominations. The clerk nominations, department of state peter henry barlene of colorado to be ambassador to the republic of cameroon. Kathleen m. Fitzpatrick of d. C. To be exafer exafer to the democratic republic of timorleste, Michael James dodman to be ambassador to the Islamic Republic of mauritania. Michelle jean sison to be ambassador to the haiti. Jamie mccourt of california to be ambassador to the principality of monaco. Richard duke buchan of florida to be ambassador to andorra, larry Andrew Andrew to be ambassador to the republic of dijibouti. Thomas l. Carter, range of ambassador during his tenure of service as representative of the United States of america on the council of the International Civic aviation organization. Nina maria fite to be ambassador to the republic of angola. Daniel l. Foote to be ambassador to the public of zambia. W. Robert kohorst of california to be ambassador to the republic of croatia. Edward t. Mcmullen jr. Of South Carolina to be ambassador to the Swiss Confederation and to the principality of liechtenstein. David dale reimer of ohio to be ambassador to the republic of mauritius and the republic of seychelles. Eric p. Whitaker of illinois to be ambassador to the republic of niger. Carla sands of california to be ambassador to the kingdom of denmark. Michael t. Evanoff to be assistant secretary. Manisha singh of florida to be assistant secretary. Mr. Mcconnell i ask that we vote en bloc with no intervening action or debate. That the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, that the president be immediately notified of the senates action, that no further motions be in order and that any statements relating to the nominations be principled in the record. The presiding officer without objection. Question occurs on the nomination en bloc. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The nominations are confirmed en bloc. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination executive calendar 361. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, department of energy. Steven e. Winberg of pennsylvania to be an assistant secretary. Mr. Mcconnell i ask consent the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senates action, that no further motions be in order, and that any statements relating to the nomination be principled in the record. The presiding officer without objection. The question appears upon the nomination. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The nomination is confirmed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations executive calendar 295, 296, 323, 324 and 325. The presiding officer without objection, the clerk will report the en bloc nominations. The clerk nomination, department of energy. Paul daber of new york to be under secretary for science. Mark wesley menenzey of virginia to be under secretary. Federal regulatory commission, Richard Glick of virginia to be a member. Ke67b j. Mcintyre of virginia to be a member for the remainder of the term. Kevin j. Mcintyre of virginia to be a member for the term expiring june 30, 2023. Mr. Mcconnell i ask consent that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senates action, that no further motions be in order, and that any statements relating to the nominations be principled in the record. The presiding officer the questions occur on the nominations en bloc. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The nominations are approved en bloc. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following nominations executive calendar 378, 380, and 385. The presiding officer without objection, the clerk shall report the nominations. The clerk nominations, National Mediation board. Kyle fortson of the District Of Columbia to be a member. Gerald w. Fauth of virginia to be a member. Lindh did a a. Puchala of maryland problem a member. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc, with no intervening agency or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senates, a that further motions be in order and any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the record. The presiding officer question occurs on the nominations en bloc. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The nominations are approved en bloc. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 107, steven engel. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk n. O. M. Nomination, department of justice, Steven Andrew engel of the District Of Columbia to be an assistant attorney general. The presiding officer question is on the nomination to proceed. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, department of justice, Steven Andrew engel of the District Of Columbia to be an assistant attorney general. Mr. Mcconnell i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer 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 Steven Andrew engel to be an assistant attorney general, signed by 17 senators as follows you. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to legislative session. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Mcconnell i move proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 384, peter robb. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, National Labor relations board, peter b. Robb of vermont to be general counsel. Mr. Mcconnell i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report the cloture motion. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of peter b. Robb to be general counsel of the National Labor relations board, signed by 17 senators as follows mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to legislative session. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 407, william wehrum. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, Environmental Protection agency, william l. Wehrum of delaware to be an assistant administrator. Mr. Mcconnell i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report the cloture motion. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of william l. Whrum to be an assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection agency, signed by 1 senators as follow mr. Mcconnell i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to legislative session. The presiding officer question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 159,der i can kahn. Sper sper all those in favor, say aye . Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, department of transportation, derek kan of california to be under secretary. Mr. Mcconnell i send a cloture notion desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report the cloture motion. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of derek kan of california to be under secretary of transportation for policy. Signed by 1 senators as by 17 senators as follows. Mr. Mcconnell i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the pending cloture motions ripen at 5 30 on monday, november 6. I further ask that at 11 00 a. M. On tuesday, november 7, the senate proceed to the consideration of executive calendar 247, as under the previous order. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell for the information of all senators, there will be a cloture vote on the engel nomination at 5 30 on monday. The senate will vote on the gibson nomination at 12 00 noon on tuesday. Mrs. Fischer mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. Mrs. Fischer mr. President , are we in a quorum call . The presiding officer we are. No, im sorry. I apologies. We are not. Mrs. Fischer thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , although nearly half of those graduating from law school are women, only about a third of federal judges are female. This week we had the honor of adding three more. I rise today to congratulate these three successful women because their additions to the federal court system are historic. They serve as more evidence that wellqualified women are becoming more confident to step forward and to serve our great nation. Amy barrett, Joan Louise Larsen and allison eid are three more cracks in that glass ceiling. Their confirmation is proof that successful women can balance responsibility and seize opportunity when it knocks at their door. Mr. President , these accomplished nominees are not joining the federal beth because of a frivolous attempt at trying to balance out the gender disparity in our courts; they will be done the black robes because they they will be donning the black robes because they earned it. Amy Coney Barrett climbed through the ranks by clerking for lawrence silberman. Working with her husband, a successful lawyer in his own right, she has balanced Family Responsibilities while achieving personal success. At the age of 30, she was hired as a professor at one of the nations best law programs, notre dame. Over the past six years, she has sat on the Advisory Committee on federal rules of the appellate procedure, on the recommendation of chief justice roberts. Joan louise larsen, the next United States circuit judge for the sixth circuit, is proof that hard work pays off. After graduating top in her class from northwestern, judge larsen clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, before serving as a Deputy Attorney general in the u. S. Department of Justice Office of legal counsel. She most recently sat on the highest court in her state, the Supreme Court of michigan. She has done this while working with her law professor husband to raise two children. Allison eid, the newest judge for the tenth circuit has demonstrated brilliance throughout her career. After graduating from stanford, she worked as an assistant speech writer for william bennet, president reagans secretary of education. After graduating law school with honors, she clerked for Justice Clarence thomas of the Supreme Court. She has served with distinction on the colorado Supreme Court since 2006. With her husband troy, the first egyptian american to serve as a u. S. District attorney, she has helped raise two children. These three successful women should serve as role models to girls and boys across this nation. They are proof that women do not need to stand back while others find success and their confirmations are evidence that when women support each other, we will achieve at the highest levels. They also demonstrate the power of families working together to accomplish goals. We should be proud to have confirmed these three great women to the federal bench. All of us receive letters from children asking questions about what do you do in the United States senate. Weeks like this one should be part of our response. We empower those who have empowered themselves regardless of their gender. We shape our legal system by filling it with qualified women who are dedicated to preserving and protecting our constitution, the framework of our free nation. We proclaim that hard work is to be rewarded. Mr. President , these three important confirmations are further proof that young women do not have to choose between raising a family and rising to the top of their chosen profession. I want to stand here today and send a message to every little girl whos wondering about politics and every young woman who is facing challenges of starting out in their career. You can do this, too. We love you and we support you. Be confident when you want to step forward and serve, to serve your community and to serve your country. The judicial nominees voted on this week exemplify the best of our nations legal community. Their confirmation to the federal bench has added significant talent to our nations system of justice. The work being done by the president and by this senate to shape the federal courts with those who will follow the rule of law is historic. President trump should be applauded for nominating such well qualified people to be on the federal bench. All of the nominees voted on this week will make exceptional additions to the federal bench, and i hope that the president sends many more like them for us to consider. All four deserving of their new positions, and i am sure they will honor and protect the constitution and serve the American People well as good judges. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. I would suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk shall call the roll. Mrs. Fischer mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. Mrs. Fischer i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Fischer mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that 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. Mrs. Fischer i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 00 p. M. Monday, november 6. Further, that the following that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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 engel nomination. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Fischer 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 til 3 00 Senate Stands adjourned til 3 00 it would limit the mortgage Interest Deduction while nearly doubling the individual and family standard