[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 188 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7270-S7275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDER--Continued


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                          Republican Tax Plan

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as the Senate Finance Committee continues 
to mark up the Senate Republican tax bill, the House will take a vote 
this afternoon on their version of the bill.
  There are plenty of reasons for House Republicans to vote against 
this bill. For those who care about deficits, you should vote no 
because the bill increases deficits by over $1.5 trillion, likely more. 
Any deficit hawk should be against this increase.
  Any defense hawk should be wary of this bill for the same reason. 
High deficits make it harder to fund important priorities like the 
military. This morning, three former Defense Secretaries--Leon Panetta, 
Chuck Hagel, and Ash Carter--penned a letter warning that the 
Republican tax plan could result, in their words, in a ``hollowed-out 
military force'' wracked by cuts to training, maintenance, flight 
missions, and other vital military programs.
  I spoke to General Mattis yesterday. He is definitely afraid of a CR 
because a CR is at sequestration levels. If we pass this tax bill with 
its huge deficit, we will have no choice but to go back to 
sequestration, and the fears of our defense leaders that they cannot 
fund the military adequately will be very real. So my shout-out is to 
all of those who care about defense, particularly our defense hawks: If 
you vote for this bill, you are going to be voting for a ``hollowed out 
military force,'' as three former defense secretaries have written to 
us this morning.
  For those House Republicans who represent middle and upper class 
suburban districts, you should vote no because this bill will raise 
taxes on a

[[Page S7271]]

high number of your constituents. Members of Congress from New York, 
New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Virginia know that 
State and local deductibility is crucial to working families in their 
districts. Today, House Republicans in many districts will take a vote 
to raise taxes on their constituents. And the compromise--the first 
three-quarters of the break is rescinded even with the compromise over 
in the House, but, second, the Senate, so desperate for money, has not 
even included the compromise here. You can be sure when it comes back, 
that compromise will not be in the bill--certainly not as generous as 
it is now. It was not very generous to begin with.
  According to the New York Times, the House bill would raise taxes on 
a third of middle-class taxpayers next year and almost half by 2027. 
The rich, meanwhile, will do just fine.
  The Senate bill, similarly, would raise taxes on 20 million middle-
class Americans by 2027. Meanwhile, folks making over $1 million will 
get an average cut of $50,000. People say: Well, they have more money; 
they should get a bigger tax cut. No. The wealthy are doing great. They 
don't need any tax cut. Give the money to the middle class.
  The number of middle-class families who would lose money from this 
bill may even be higher now, considering the 10-percent increase in 
premiums that will occur as a result of the Republican plan to repeal 
the individual mandate. That 10-percent increase in health premiums 
could more than wipe out the tax cuts received by some folks in the 
middle. All the while, 13 million fewer Americans get health insurance.
  My friend, Senator Graham, recently said: ``I hope every Republican 
knows that when you pass a repeal of the individual mandate . . . 
[healthcare] becomes your problem.'' Lindsey Graham is very politically 
pressured. He is telling his Republican colleagues that if they do 
this, every problem in healthcare will be on their backs.
  The whole idea of taking money from the pockets of hard-working 
Americans, of taking money out of their healthcare and giving it to big 
corporations and those at the very top is so backward, so wrong, that 
the American people will reject it, and the blame will fall on 
Republican shoulders. If the Republican tax bill should pass, it would 
make our economy, so unfairly tilted toward the top as it already is, 
even more unbalanced and unfair.
  Over the past three decades, as technology has changed our economy 
and our world has become ever more interdependent, our economy has 
grown. Yes, it has grown; there is a lot of growth. But that growth, 
more than at any time in history, has been captured entirely, almost, 
by big corporations and the top 1 percent and particularly the top 0.1 
percent of our country. We don't begrudge them. We are glad people work 
hard. With new ideas and hard work, people should become wealthy, but 
they don't need a tax break.
  At the same time, middle-class families have muddled along. Median 
income has barely nudged up in three decades. The costs of college, 
healthcare, prescription drugs, cable, and the internet have 
skyrocketed as corporations have consolidated in their industries, 
reducing competition and driving up prices.
  For the middle-class families in the suburbs, for the working parent 
in the city, for the young millennials just setting off into the 
workforce after college, for the single mom raising two children, it is 
about as hard as ever to balance your income with ever-rising costs. In 
such an economy, tax reform could really matter to those folks, but 
only if it is done right.
  Instead of focusing all their efforts on improving the condition of 
those working Americans, Republicans have directed the lion's share of 
the benefits to the already wealthy, the already powerful--corporate 
America and the very rich.
  There is perhaps no better example than President Trump and his 
family, for whom this bill would be an express mail gift from Heaven: 
Repealing the estate tax, they have a big one; repealing the 
alternative minimum tax--the Trumps pay a lot of alternative minimum 
tax; dropping the rate on passthrough entities like the Trump 
Organization, a huge tax break for Donald Trump.
  So scrapping middle-class deductions while maintaining loopholes for 
real estate businesses, golf course owners--who do you think came up 
with this plan? Not the average middle-class guy or gal. All of these 
things contained in the House Republican bill would likely pile more on 
top of President Trump's fortune while millions and millions of middle-
class families end up paying more.
  I am not sure any family in America feels it is right to subsidize 
tax cuts for folks like President Trump and his family, and their 
voices will be heard during the debate on this bill and afterward.
  This bill will be a huge burden for Republicans to carry on their 
backs over the next year, make no mistake about it. So we hope they 
will vote down the bill in the House and in the Senate. I want to 
assure my friends in the Senate on the other side of the aisle that if 
the bill goes down, Democrats are ready, willing, able, and eager to 
work with Republicans on a bipartisan reform.


                                  DACA

  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, seeing my friend Senator 
Durbin here, I would like to address one final issue--the Dreamers.
  My dear friend Senator Durbin has an uncommon eloquence. He speaks 
with eloquence and yet with Midwestern common sense. He speaks with 
persuasiveness and ease on a great number of subjects. He is a great 
asset to our Democratic caucus and to the Senate as a whole, but there 
is no doubt that the Dreamers are at the top of his list. They are near 
and dear to his heart. He is one of the chief architects of DACA and 
has labored on their behalf for as long as I can remember.
  Every Dreamer should thank Senator Durbin. He is their sponsor, their 
champion, and their staunchest advocate.
  This morning I would like to join him in recognizing the 
contributions of a Dreamer in my State--a reminder of the glaring need 
to pass the Dream Act, since President Trump so misguidedly terminated 
the program a few months ago.
  Zuleima Dominguez is a DACA recipient who lives in the Bronx. Zuleima 
was brought to the United States from Mexico when she was 7 years old. 
She has grown up in the United States and has gone to school here; she 
went to her first dance in the United States and knows no other country 
as her home.
  Like so many other Americans, Zuleima is working her way through 
college--Hunter College, part of City University on the Upper East 
Side--but because of her legal status, she has been unable to access 
enough help to afford her tuition. So what does Zuleima do? She works 
45 hours a week at a homeless shelter, giving back to her fellow New 
Yorkers while saving up for her next semester.
  She is studying to be a social worker. Isn't Zuleima what we hope an 
American citizen would be like? Wouldn't we all be proud to call her 
our neighbor, our friend, our daughter?
  She is someone who works hard and feels a calling to give back to her 
community. Zuleima has the quintessential American spirit, as had 
millions who came to this country before her, through the centuries.
  She is part of that long and grand tradition of immigration in this 
country, of folks coming from all over the world to find a better life 
here, build strong families and communities, and make indelible 
contributions to our society, our economy, and our culture.
  Zuleima and her two children are part of that American tradition. 
They, with all of us, are what makes America great.
  There are many more Dreamers just like Zuleima who came to this 
country through no fault of their own as very young kids. They study at 
our schools; they work in our companies; they serve in our military. 
They are American in every single way but one--their paperwork.
  We must fix that now and forever by passing the Dream Act through 
Congress and giving folks like Zuleima and her kids a chance to live 
and thrive in the only country they have ever known.
  I know my entire caucus supports the bill. I know how many of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle support it as well. So what are 
we waiting for? Let's put the bill on the floor and pass it.

[[Page S7272]]

  I yield to my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic leader. His 
strong support of the Dream Act encourages me but, more importantly, 
gives hope to the Dreamers across America: young men and women, just 
like the one he described, who are living in fear, fear that their time 
in America is coming to an end.
  This is the only country they have ever known. They have stood in 
classroom after classroom and pledged allegiance to the American flag, 
the only flag they have ever known. They sing the national anthem. They 
believe they are part of America, but as Senator Schumer has reminded 
us, they are missing the paperwork. Their parents brought them here as 
infants, toddlers, children and never filed the paperwork, never made 
them legal, and here they are in this country, searching for an answer, 
searching for some hope.
  My best basic question to the U.S. Senate and to my colleagues is: 
Why do we make this so hard? Why is this so difficult? Don't we all 
fundamentally agree on the premise that no young person should be held 
responsible for the actions or decisions of their parents? That is what 
is happening here. These young people didn't make the key decisions in 
their lives; their parents did.
  Let me quickly add, because many of the Dreamers say: Senator Durbin, 
understand that our parents were doing everything they could to help 
us. I couldn't agree more. From a moral viewpoint, their parents were 
determined to help their children and were prepared to incur great 
risk, even legal risk, to do it. I understand that. I would do the same 
thing, and I am not being critical or negative. But the simple fact and 
reality is that these young people, because they don't have the 
paperwork, don't have a future in America.
  The circumstances they face are bleak. Imagine, if you will, the 
challenge of college, the challenge of going from high school on to an 
education at a university, with no help whatsoever from the Federal 
Government. You don't qualify for a penny in Pell grants; you don't 
qualify for any help when it comes to government loans. Think about the 
challenge of college and higher education without that help, without 
the fundamental assistance that millions of young Americans count on. 
Dreamers get no help--none. They have to fight their way forward on 
their own, and they do it in remarkable and heroic ways.
  Over the last break, I was down at Southern Illinois University at 
Carbondale--deep southern Illinois, 300 miles or more away from the 
city of Chicago--and I sat down with a group of these Dreamers who were 
at the university. One young woman had worked so hard to get through 
community college and now through the university at Carbondale and 
still had two semesters left before graduation. She was telling me 
about her struggles--taking time off to work a job, save the money, go 
back to school, and here she was where she could see the finish line. 
As she sat there and described it to me, she stopped and broke down in 
tears. She said to me: Why am I doing this? Because of the announcement 
by President Trump, I don't have any future in this country. After all 
these years and all this effort, I really don't have a future here.
  I don't believe that, and I begged her not to believe it either. She 
has a future, an important future in the United States and in the State 
of Illinois. She has proved through her determination and hard work 
that she is an extraordinary young woman. She is going to get that 
bachelor's degree, and I pray that we in the Senate and the House--with 
the President--will give her a chance to be part of America.
  President Obama did. He created DACA. I had introduced the DREAM Act 
years and years ago--16 years ago--when President Obama was my 
colleague in the Senate from Illinois. He was the cosponsor. I joined 
with Senator Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana, writing to 
President Obama, saying: Find a way, if you can. Find a way to protect 
these Dreamers from deportation until we pass a law that needs to be 
passed. And he did it. He created the DACA Program, where young people 
could come forward, pay the fine and fee of almost $500 or $600, submit 
themselves to a criminal background check to make sure there were no 
problems in their background, show proof that they had graduated from 
high school, and then--only then--would they be allowed to stay in the 
United States for 2 years and not be deported and legally be allowed to 
work.
  Well, President Obama created by executive order the DACA Program. At 
the end of the day, 780,000 of these young people stepped forward. It 
was a leap of faith on their part. Each and every one of them had been 
raised in America by their parents and carefully schooled in this 
belief: Don't raise your head. Don't let this government see us. As 
long as we can live in the shadows, as long as we are not confronted 
with the legal system, we have a chance to stay. They lived with that 
looming over their heads every single day. Then, when President Obama 
said to them: Come forward, tell us who you are, where you live; tell 
us about your family; and we will give you a chance to stay here 
legally under this Executive order, they did it. They trusted in their 
leaders. They trusted in their government. They were prepared to make 
that leap of faith, at great risk, on the chance that this might be the 
ticket they were looking for to a life in America, to be part of 
America's dream and America's future.

  Then, on September 5, President Trump came forward and announced that 
he would abolish this program created by President Obama and that it 
would end on March 5, 2018. He established a standard and said: We will 
allow those who have to renew during this period of time--their 2-year 
DACA protection had expired, and they would have to renew--until 
November 5 to file and to qualify for a renewal period. He picked 
November 5. For many of them, it was a surprise and a challenge to come 
up with the filing fee and to get the papers in on time so that their 
protection would continue until March 5, 2018, or beyond. Some of them 
did everything they could think of. Some went to attorneys, for 
example, to make sure they got this renewal of DACA completed 
successfully and accurately.
  Now we have learned that something terrible happened in the meantime. 
They relied on the Federal Government--particularly, they relied on our 
Postal Service--to mail in their applications for renewal. Who would 
have argued that that was not a responsible thing to do? I can tell my 
colleagues that practicing attorneys across the United States use our 
Postal Service regularly.
  One attorney sent the renewal to Washington by certified mail so that 
there would be proof that it was mailed. He mailed it on October 21. 
The problem was that the Postal Service lost the application. It didn't 
arrive until a day later, a day past the deadline established by the 
President.
  That young person has lost the right to renew unless the Department 
of Homeland Security comes up with a new ruling on the subject. That is 
the complexity of the life of these young people who are simply asking 
for a chance to be part of America's future. That is what that young 
applicant faced. That is what hundreds of others faced. We believe that 
some 8,000 were not able to renew in time and lost their protected 
status.
  I can't tell you what their future is, but I pray that the Senate, 
before we leave this year, will decide the right thing for their 
future.
  I have come to the floor over 100 times to tell the personal stories 
of these young people who are asking for a chance to have the Dream Act 
become the law of the land. Some Republican Senators have joined me in 
this effort. Notably, Lindsey Graham, the Republican Senator from South 
Carolina, has been a cosponsor. Three other Republican Senators have 
joined in sponsoring the Dream Act, and more are interested in helping. 
The conversations continue on the floor and give me some hope that, at 
the end of the day, we will do the right thing, before the end of this 
year.
  Let me add, too, that having served in the Senate--it has been my 
honor to be here for some years--I know the calendar determines your 
fate many times in the Senate. The calendar we face could determine the 
fate of these Dreamers.

[[Page S7273]]

  Here is what it boils down to. If we don't renew the Dream Act before 
the end of this year, then it has to be done in January or February. 
January and February are well known to be months of little activity in 
the Senate and in the House. So if we wait until then, it is not likely 
it is going to happen. That is why I am pleading with my colleagues and 
the leadership of the Senate: We can't go home for the holidays until 
we do this. We can't talk about dreaming of a white Christmas until we 
face the Dreamers and the bleak Christmas they face if we fail to act. 
I am begging my colleagues on both sides to roll up their sleeves and 
join me, sit at the table, and let's get this job done.
  There are specific reasons why we should, and I want to tell one of 
those stories today, as I have done more than 100 times in the past.
  This young lady's name is Priscilla Aguilar. Priscilla was 5 years 
old when her family brought her to the United States from Mexico. She 
grew up in Brownsville, TX. She was a great student. In high school she 
joined a medical magnet program and graduated in the top 10 percent of 
her class.
  Priscilla was a member of the Health Occupations Students of America, 
where she participated in regional and State competitions in biomedical 
debate and medical reading. This experience sparked her love for 
science.
  Priscilla went off to the University of Texas at Brownsville. She 
graduated with honors in the winter of 2012 with a bachelor's degree in 
biological sciences. Remember, as a Dreamer, she didn't qualify for any 
Federal assistance going to school. She had to work at jobs and borrow 
money from others to finish her education.
  After graduation, Priscilla was accepted into Teach for America, a 
national nonprofit organization that places talented college graduates 
in urban and rural schools where there are special challenges and 
shortages of teachers. It is interesting, isn't it, that this young 
woman who was brought here at the age of 5 not only worked so hard for 
her own education but was then willing to give 2 years of her life in 
the schools of America to help less fortunate students. Do you think 
you have an insight into who she is and what her values are?
  Priscilla is not alone. Twenty thousand DACA Dreamers are currently 
teaching across the United States of America, including 190 in the 
Teach for America Program.
  Priscilla now teaches biological and medical microbiology at Mercedes 
High School in Mercedes, TX. She is the head of the Science Department. 
She oversees a team of nine science teachers. She teaches students of 
all grade levels and coaches the school's debate team. The team won the 
district championship last year and participated in the State 
championship.

  In 2013, a tragedy struck Priscilla's family. Her mother died 
unexpectedly. Currently, Priscilla is caring for her three younger 
siblings, all of whom were born in the United States and are U.S. 
citizens. In fact, almost 75 percent of Dreamers have a U.S. citizen 
spouse, child, or sibling.
  Priscilla wrote me a letter, which I will read into the Congressional 
Record:

       Science and learning are my biggest passions and I want to 
     keep pushing myself forward so that I can be better equipped 
     to serve my community and my students. I want to inspire and 
     encourage all students to pursue careers in science. I want 
     to be a role model and mentor to students by succeeding in a 
     science career myself. If I can do it, so can they!

  But without DACA, and without the Dream Act, Priscilla and 20,000 
other teachers just like her will lose their jobs in America. I am not 
exaggerating. DACA gives Priscilla the legal right to work in America. 
If she loses that DACA protection on the March 5 deadline, or whenever 
her renewal comes up, at that point she can no longer work in the 
United States.
  This is not an isolated case. I have told the story many times about 
28 students at the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine in 
Chicago. They are all protected by DACA. They came to that medical 
school in open competition--no quotas, no special slots. They are the 
best and brightest. They came from all over the United States because 
Loyola University--thank goodness--decided they deserved a chance. 
Young people like them all across America who had given up on a medical 
education because they were undocumented finally had their chance under 
DACA. Twenty-eight of them now are dedicated to becoming doctors.
  They can't borrow money from our Federal Government, as I mentioned 
before. The State of Illinois, under both a Democratic and Republican 
Governor, have created loan programs for them in medical school with 
one condition: For every year the State of Illinois helps to pay for 
their medical education, they have to pledge 1 year when they finish 
their medical degrees in service to our State, in areas where we have 
shortages of doctors--medically underserved areas.
  So 28 of them now have their fate hanging in the balance, depending 
on the fate of the Dream Act. Why? Because to become a doctor, you need 
a residency. A residency is a job. A residency means legally working. 
If these young people lose the DACA and Dreamer protection, they have 
to drop out of medical school. They cannot continue their residency and 
pursue a specialty that they have had their heart set on.
  That is the reality of our failure to act. That is the reality of 
losing Priscilla Aguilar as an inspiring science teacher in Texas, of 
losing 28 doctors who are on their way to graduation at Loyola 
University, and of literally thousands of others who could make America 
a better, more prosperous, and a more just Nation.
  Why do we make this so hard? Why do we make it so difficult for these 
young people? They have overcome the odds. They have shown their 
determination. They have shown their love for this country. Many of 
these DACA Dreamers are begging to serve in our military, to risk their 
lives for America. Yet we have failed to act. The President draws a 
deadline and says: After this point, there will be no more protection 
for these young people. That isn't what America stands for. That does 
not reflect our values.
  I stand here today honored to be the son of an immigrant to this 
country. My mother was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. 
That immigrant family fought hard when they arrived, as most immigrant 
families do. By fate, my mother became a naturalized citizen and her 
son became a U.S. Senator. That is my story. That is my family's story, 
but it is America's story. It is a story that has been repeated 
millions of times over and over. People come here begging for a 
chance--a chance for a better life, a chance to make this a better 
nation.
  These young people and their parents, I might add, deserve that kind 
of consideration. What we are considering today doesn't affect their 
parents and the Dream Act, but certainly we should give these young 
people a chance. I think their parents deserve it, too, but that is a 
debate for another day, perhaps. We will see.
  In the meantime, I beg my colleagues to join us. Let's do something 
right this year, before the end of the year, that reflects our values 
of who we are. Let's acknowledge the obvious. Justice demands us to 
step up and stand behind these Dreamers.
  The moment is about to arrive. Senator Lindsey Graham, my Republican 
cosponsor of the bill, said that a moment of reckoning is coming. He is 
right. It is a moment of reckoning as to who we are in the Senate and 
in the Congress and in the White House. It is a reflection on our view 
of America as a nation--a nation of immigrants that has embraced 
diversity and become all the stronger because of it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Background Checks

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, unlike past occasions when I have 
spoken on the topic of gun violence prevention, I am actually pleased 
to talk about some good news. A powerful alliance across the aisle has 
enabled us this morning to introduce a measure that will be a modest 
but significant breakthrough. It is a breakthrough in

[[Page S7274]]

hopefully providing better data, more complete information for the 
database that provides for background checks. It is essential that more 
accurate and thorough data be provided in the database because 
background checks are no better than the information provided to them, 
as we have seen again and again, in Sutherland Springs most recently 
but also Charleston and Blacksburg, where individuals legally barred 
from accessing firearms were permitted to do so because of gaps in the 
NICS system. Each of those killers walked out of a gun store having 
purchased firearms from a federally licensed dealer, even though they 
should have been ineligible, because of gaps in the reporting system; 
that is, the information reported to the national system that collects 
that data and provides the underpinning for this program.
  We are a bipartisan group that says, in effect, enforcement must be 
rigorous, as complete and effective as possible. New laws may be 
sought, and we will continue to seek a broader background check law, as 
well as a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We in 
this coalition may be divided on those issues, but at the very least, 
we can join arms and link together on this measure.
  These provisions will help enforce public safety protections that 
could mean the difference between life and death. Nonreporting now puts 
people at lethal risk, riddling with gaping holes a system that should 
keep guns away from killers. The Federal background check system is 
only as good as the information provided to it.
  I am proud to be part of this alliance. I look forward to the next 
steps--the prompt passage of this legislation and other measures that 
perhaps will evoke the same kind of bipartisan spirit across the aisle.
  I am working with a number of my Republican colleagues on a measure 
relating to military reporting, particularly as it concerns domestic 
violence. All of us who have been attorneys general, as the Presiding 
Officer has been, know the scourge of domestic violence and how much 
more dangerous it is--five times more lethal--when there is a gun in 
the house. More than half of the homicides in this country occur as a 
result of domestic violence. More effective enforcement requires steps 
that enable resources as well as awareness in the military and in our 
civilian courts.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. President, on the topic of effective enforcement of the law, I 
rise today on a related topic, which is the quality of our judiciary. 
Our laws are only as effective as the judges who implement them.
  I rise with regret because the administration is attempting to 
radically reshape our judiciary, to remake the bench in the image of a 
far-right dogma that basically contravenes what we are and where we are 
as a nation.
  This administration has proposed extreme nominees who will seek to 
undo decades of critically important progress in recognizing and 
protecting reproductive rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, workers' 
rights, environmental protections, and more.
  For the last 10 months, this administration has tried its level best 
to move our country backward by implementing its destructive, deeply 
unpopular agenda. They want to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. They 
want to abandon LGBT Americans. They want to make it harder to vote, 
harder to organize, harder to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
  If they fall short in carrying out this cruel agenda through 
Executive action and legislation, this administration has looked to the 
courts to do its dirty work. The Trump administration seeks to flood 
the Federal judiciary with judges--appointed for life--who will defend 
their indefensible goals. This plot is not hidden. It is not secret. It 
is out in the open. President Trump has made it clear. He claims to 
have a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees--he will nominate someone 
who will ``automatically'' overturn Roe v. Wade. Just last month, the 
Senate voted to confirm two circuit court nominees--Allison Eid and 
Joan Larsen--who had been listed by then-Candidate Trump as potential 
Supreme Court nominees, indicating that they have passed that litmus 
test. When I asked both of these nominees whether their records would 
lead someone to believe that they would ``automatically'' reverse Roe 
v. Wade, they both demurred. They said they did not know why they were 
selected for President Trump's Supreme Court short list--no idea. I 
don't believe it. Then-Candidate Trump laid out his Supreme Court 
selection criteria in clear, unambiguous terms.

  Yesterday we heard testimony from a circuit court nominee, Justice 
Don Willett, of the Texas Supreme Court, who proudly described himself 
in 2012 as the ``consensus, conservative choice from every corner of 
the conservative movement: pro-life, pro-faith, pro-family, pro-
liberty, pro-Second Amendment, pro-private property rights, and pro-
limited government.'' That is the way that he described himself.
  When I asked him what he meant by tying himself to these labels, he 
refused to give me a straight answer. In fact, he said, in effect, that 
he was just pandering to the public for votes, that that was part of 
his reelection pitch. Maybe he didn't believe it, but we have all been 
around long enough to know what these terms mean to voters and what 
they mean to the President of the United States. They aren't dog 
whistles, literally, but they represent specific ideologies. They are 
shorthand for specific dogma.
  I have no confidence that Justice Willett will be an impartial and 
objective implementer of the law and enforcer of the measures that we 
pass here.
  Just last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Brett 
Talley. He is someone who wrote that the solution to the Newtown 
shooting--he wrote it 3 days after that massacre--is to ``stop being a 
society of pansies and man up.'' He is someone who has written that the 
country ``overreacted'' and that ``the Second Amendment suffered'' 
after the murder of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown.
  After one of the great tragedies of this country in recent years, his 
reaction was that the Second Amendment suffered. He is someone who has 
disingenuously written that Democrats want to take away everyone's 
guns. Even setting aside the fact that he has never tried a case in his 
career, he is someone who should be nowhere near the bench, at least 
not as a judge.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will revisit their decision to 
support him.
  I want to emphasize that the compromise that we have reached today 
and that we are introducing in this bipartisan group takes away no 
one's guns if one is law-abiding and otherwise complies with the law. 
In fact, it provides incentives and rewards to States that do better 
reporting. It makes sure that a robust reporting system prevents the 
sales of firearms to people who are a danger to themselves or others, 
including convicted domestic abusers.
  This exaggeration, distortion, misinformation from Mr. Talley is, I 
think, emblematic of what kind of judge he would be.
  Let us not forget that we are, in fact, judged by the company that we 
keep. President Trump is willing to nominate someone like Jeff Mateer 
to a lifetime appointment on the Federal District Court for the Eastern 
District of Texas. He was not on the docket this week, but he could 
well come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing in the 
coming weeks.
  This is someone who has called transgender children ``Satan's plan.'' 
He has proudly said: ``On the basis of sexual orientation, we 
discriminate.'' He has advocated conversion therapy for LGBT children.
  With these nominations, President Trump has shown the type of people 
he is willing to propose for lifetime appointments on the district 
court, as well as the court of appeals. As someone who has practiced in 
the district courts of Connecticut and others around the country, as 
well as in courts of appeals in the Second Circuit and elsewhere, these 
appointments have a special meaning to me and to others who are well 
versed in the way our justice system works.
  For many people in this country, the U.S. district court is the first 
place they seek justice. They rely on Federal judges to be above 
politics and to be above personal ideology and dogma of the right or 
the left wing. The U.S. district court is the first place they seek 
justice, and, for many, it is the last place. Adverse rulings for them 
are often the end of the line because they lack the resources to pursue 
appeals to

[[Page S7275]]

the circuit court. Our district court judges are often the voices and 
faces of justice that the people of the United States most trust and 
rely on.
  What we see in these nominees is a pattern. They have clearly 
demonstrated through their actions, their statements, their 
temperaments, and their characters that they are, simply, unfit and 
unable to serve as impartial judges, especially when it comes to our 
Nation's most vulnerable communities. Our Nation's most vulnerable 
communities are often the ones who rely the most on those Federal 
courts.
  There can be no benefit of the doubt for nominees when they 
articulate the kinds of beliefs and dogma that these individuals have 
in their pasts and that they refuse to disavow in the present. I will 
oppose them, and I hope my colleagues will join me. I believe that on 
both sides of the aisle, we share a commitment to the credibility and 
trust of our judiciary.
  As I have said before on the floor, our judges do not have armies; 
they do not have police forces. The enforceability of their rulings 
really depends on the credibility and trust that the people of our 
Nation have in them as individuals who put on robes, because they are 
supposed to put aside their personal prejudices and beliefs and fairly, 
impartially, and objectively enforce the law.
  I fear that these nominees lack these qualities, and that is a 
tragedy for our Nation, whatever your politics. Someday, you will 
likely be before a judge--maybe not all, but many of you will--and you 
will want that judge to look at both sides of the courtroom and say 
that they both have an equal chance to make their cases, not tilt one 
way or the other because of the judge's personal beliefs. I hope that 
my colleagues will send a message to the President of the United States 
that one cannot politicize the American judiciary.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Mr. Joseph Otting to be Comptroller of the Currency. The 
OCC's mission is to ensure that the financial institutions it oversees 
operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial 
services, treat customers fairly, and comply with the applicable laws 
and regulations.
  The OCC is responsible for overseeing the supervision of all national 
banks and Federal savings associations as well as Federal branches and 
agencies of foreign banks. The OCC also plays an important role in 
identifying and responding to emerging threats in our financial system.
  Mr. Otting is exceptionally qualified to lead the OCC as its 
comptroller. His unique expertise and understanding of the banking 
sector has been shaped by over three decades of firsthand industry 
experience. Mr. Otting has held positions at large regional and 
community financial institutions, including key leadership positions. 
In fact, he has touched virtually every segment of the industry, 
working in consumer services, business services, human resources, 
compliance, audit, and many others.
  His understanding of how banks work and knowledge of the laws and 
regulations governing the financial sector was evident throughout his 
nomination hearings. I was also encouraged by Mr. Otting's statements 
about the importance of ensuring that all Americans have access to 
banking products and services. Mr. Otting also reaffirmed his 
commitment to honor the OCC's mission and cooperating with the work of 
Congress.
  I am confident Mr. Otting will bring strong leadership to the OCC, 
given his extensive experience in the financial industry. I urge my 
colleagues to support Mr. Otting's nomination today and vote for his 
confirmation in the future.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 1:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to 
legislative session and the Chair lay before the Senate the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2810, as under the previous order, and that 
there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided between the managers or 
their designees prior to the vote on the adoption of the conference 
report; further, that following disposition of the conference report, 
the Senate resume executive session and all postcloture time on the 
Coggins and Friedrich nominations be yielded back and the Senate vote 
on confirmation of the Coggins nomination immediately, and that the 
confirmation vote on the Friedrich nomination occur at 5:30 p.m. on 
Monday, November 27; finally, that if the nominations are confirmed, 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
and the Senate be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield back the time on the Otting 
nomination, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Otting 
nomination?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Booker
     Franken
     Menendez
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________