A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the President's inauguration over 2 years ago was a historic moment. Though my candidate didn't win, I attended it in my capacity here in the U.S. Senate and saw a lot of people, but the one person I saw who was nothing short of remarkable was Jimmy Carter.

The reason why it was remarkable to see the former President, who left office in 1980--39 years ago--was the fact that most everyone had counted him for dead. If you will remember, he was diagnosed with a form of cancer that was supposedly fatal. People were talking about making their last trip to Plains to attend his church on Sunday and hear his last sermon. I thought it was over, and most everyone did, too, but then something amazing happened. There was a new drug that came along, and it turned out to be just the right drug to save his life.

When I saw Jimmy Carter a little over 2 years ago, I thought to myself: I never thought I would see him again, and I never thought I would see him looking this good.

Those things don't just happen. Those drugs aren't just discovered. They are the product of a great deal of work and research and application.

I remember asking Dr. Collins at the National Institutes of Health what Jimmy Carter's story was. He explained that early research at NIH, which is the premier medical research facility in the world, had led to some new possibilities in treating cancers. It just so happened that Jimmy Carter's cancer was responsive to that drug. Others have been, too, and I hope that even more are discovered.

The good news is that the U.S. Senate and Congress understand this. Do you know what has happened over the last 4 years? What has happened over the last 4 years is a dramatic show of bipartisanship when it comes to medical research. Roy Blunt, from Missouri, is in my neighboring State. I, of course, represent Illinois. He is the head of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health. Lamar Alexander, from the State of Tennessee, is the chairman of the authorizing committee for the National Institutes of Health. Patty Murray, my Democratic colleague from the State of Washington, serves in both the appropriations and authorization committees and couldn't be a stronger advocate when it comes to medical research. We have a little team together, the four of us, and we said we were going to do something or try to do something each year.

Here is what we set out to do. We set out to take the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health and give it 5 percent real growth every single year--because Dr. Collins told me: If you do that, Senator, then the people who do the research believe that next year could be a good year, too, to continue their research, and they will stick with it, and when they stick with it, amazing things happen.

So we did. I want to give credit to Senator Blunt, Senator Alexander, and Senator Murray. I was happy to be a part of the effort. For 4 straight years, we added 5 percent real growth to the National Institutes of Health. In total, when you look at all of the increase of that period, there is a 30-percent increase in medical research in a period of 4 years and more to follow--more to follow, if we get a chance.

That is why, when we received President Trump's budget yesterday, it was such a heartbreaking disappointment. He has given up in terms of our continued increases in medical research. In fact, he wants to cut $5 billion out of the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health.

Each of us decides why we want to be here and what is worth fighting for. I think medical research is worth fighting for. The team that has been fighting for it has been a bipartisan team in the Senate, and I hope they felt the same way I did--a feeling of real disappointment in President Trump's budget.

I have to tell you that he believes his wall is the most important thing on Earth. I believe medical research and saving lives are among the most important things on Earth. As for cutting money out of medical research--for whatever reason you are going to use it--I just have to say to the President and others that you are in for a fight. There are a lot of us who are standing up and representing patients that are counting on that research to find a breakthrough and families who are dealing with Alzheimer's.

How many friends of mine and how many families could I tell you about who have some form of Parkinson's or dementia or Alzheimer's that has changed the family dramatically? Can we and should we be looking for more medical research to delay the onset of Alzheimer's and, God willing, to find a cure some day?

We are reaching a point where this is going to absolutely take over the medical budget of America if we are not careful. Shortsighted cuts in medical research jeopardize those new cures for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and dementia.

The President is just wrong in his priorities--just wrong. Some of the other things he has done in the budget are equally troubling. According to his budget request, the President wants to cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid--$1.5 million from Medicaid.

What is the Medicaid Program? It is health insurance for poor people. Who are those poor people? In my State of Illinois, out of all the babies born in my State each year, half of them are paid for by Medicaid. There are low-income moms delivering babies--we hope healthy babies--because Medicaid as health insurance is there to help them.

But that isn't the biggest charge on the Medicaid Program. The biggest charge on the Medicaid Program--that health insurance program-- is for your mom, your grandmother, or your father. When they reach that stage in life where nothing is left, when there is no savings and maybe a little Social Security check, and they have medical needs, it is the Medicaid Program that comes through for them.

If we cut what the President is suggesting, $1.5 trillion in Medicaid, which of those groups do you want to reduce care for--the mothers with their new babies or the parents and grandparents at a stage in life where they have no

place to turn and no savings to turn to? That is not a good outcome.

Then there was the suggested cut of $845 billion in the Medicare Program. Medicare is health insurance for the elderly. When you reach age 65, you have paid into it through your working life and you have that Medicare insurance plan. The President cuts $845 billion out of Medicare.

Does Medicare work? There is one way to test it. What is the life expectancy of senior citizens today, after Medicare, compared to their life expectancy before Medicare? It is dramatically different. People are living longer and more independent lives because Medicare gives them quality care when they reach age 65, and President Trump believes we should cut that program by $845 billion. That, to me, is shortsighted.

When it comes to our health, is there anything more important? When it comes to the health of our families, of seniors, of the disabled, and of women who are about to have a baby, is there anything more important than to make sure that turns out right? It is hard for me to think of what it might be.

The cut to the Centers for Disease Control of $1.3 billion in the President's budget is another one you just shake your head at. The Centers for Disease Control shows up when no one else will enter the room, when they are facing diseases that are life-threatening. For the Ebola crisis in western Africa and the fear that it would spread throughout that continent and maybe to the United States, it was the Centers for Disease Control that stepped in and said: We are going to tackle it. We will take it on.

They did, and they did it successfully.

We are only one plane ticket away from some of those diseases making it into the United States. I want the Centers for Disease Control to stop them in their tracks before they come to the United States, and the President cuts $1.3 billion.

The SNAP food stamp program is another one--a cut of $220 billion. This is a program that provides supplements for food for families. Many of them are working families who just don't make enough money to get by. I can't tell you how many food pantries I visited in Illinois where the people who run it--many of them volunteers with churches and charities--say: The people who are coming in to see us now are folks who are working and not making enough money.

Some of them qualify for food stamps, and some of them don't, but feeding America should be fundamental in this country; shouldn't it? Shouldn't that be one of the basic things we pride ourselves on as Americans?

Remember when President Trump spoke about the aging infrastructure of America during his campaign? Even though I wasn't supporting his candidacy, I certainly cheered those remarks. Infrastructure is bipartisan. The roads and bridges in Arizona and Illinois and in every other State all need help, and they count on us in Congress to come through with it. Well, the budget that the President released this week slashes infrastructure funding by 22 percent. When we should be putting more into making a more modern and more efficient infrastructure to build our economy, the President cuts it. He cuts 31 percent from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Today, I had a visit from the Illinois corn growers. We are proud. There is a lot of corn in Illinois, and we are proud of being No. 2 to Iowa, I might add, when it comes to corn production. But do you know what they talked about in addition to ag programs? They talked about the locks and dams on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Those are the avenues of commerce for agriculture in the Midwest, and they are old and getting older and falling apart.

The Army Corps of Engineers are counted on to modernize them, and the President cuts 31 percent of their budget--one-third of their budget-- and 16 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The President's budget completely ignores the threat of climate change, cutting the Environmental Protection Agency by 30 percent.

Here is one that hits home. The President cut the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by an outrageous 90 percent. They did a survey a few years ago and asked the people of Chicago, the city I am proud to represent: What do you think is the defining characteristic of the city?

The overwhelming response was Lake Michigan. That beautiful lake, a part of the Great Lakes, is not just a source of pride, but it is a source of good, clean drinking water and of recreation and commerce. We know it is threatened in every direction, from chemical runoffs to invasive species, and we fight to make sure those lakes will survive for another generation. The President cuts the funds for that effort by 90 percent.

These are just a few examples of decisions made in the President's budget.

Needless to say, I have saved the best for last. Though he has cut everything I just talked about--from medical research to protecting our Great Lakes, to transportation and infrastructure, to taking care of senior citizens, to making sure that health insurance is there for expectant mothers--the President needs $8.5 billion for his almighty wall, this wall on our southern border.

We have given the President 120 miles of fencing--new and replacement fencing--over the first 2 years he was in office. That is 120 miles to add to the 640 already on our border. Do you know how many miles have been built, as I stand here today, for the last 2 years that we have given the President? None. It takes a long time to build these fences, and the President is learning it the hard way. Yet he wants to take money out of programs across the board on the possibility that they may be built in the future--needed or not. Congress needs to step up--and I hope on a bipartisan basis--to assert our constitutional authority and to find a bipartisan way to put together a budget that is much more balanced and that realizes the real values of America.

Judicial Nominations

Mr. President, this week, Senate Republicans are looking to confirm two more circuit court nominations, which would make a total of six circuit court confirmations this year.

None of these six circuit court nominees have had any prior judicial experience. Some have had very little courtroom experience at all.

Four of them have been put forward over the opposition of Senators in their home State: Eric Miller, who was opposed by both Washington Senators; Chad Readler and Eric Murphy, who were opposed by Senator Brown; and now Paul Matey, who was nominated over the objections of both Senators Booker and Menendez.

I believe the Republican majority is making a serious mistake by abandoning blue slips for circuit court seats. They have set a precedent that could affect each and every one of our States.

Already, the Trump administration has nominated a person for a Ninth Circuit California seat, Daniel Bress, who has only lived in California for 1 year since high school and who practices in Washington, DC.

It is absurd to see a nominee to a California-based seat with such minimal ties to California. That is what the Republicans have brought about by abandoning circuit court blue slips. It is a big mistake.

This week, Majority Leader McConnell plowed right through with a vote on Paul Matey, President Trump's nominee for a Third Circuit seat based in New Jersey. Mr. Matey had recently served for 4 years as the general counsel for University Hospital in Newark, NJ. While Mr. Matey was there, a patient safety organization gave this hospital annual grades of ``C,'' ``D,'' ``D,'' and ``F'' for patient safety. The grades got worse while Mr. Matey was there.

Previously, Mr. Matey had been a longtime staff member to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He served as Governor Christie's chief ethics officer and deputy chief counsel. Mr. Matey said he provided a rigorous system of ethics training, monitoring, and oversight for staff members in the Governor's office; yet it is unclear what steps, if any, he took to ensure that ethics rules were followed. It certainly appears that Mr. Matey's ethics guidance fell way short during the so-called Bridgegate scandal in 2013. That is when Christie administration officials arranged to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge as retaliation

against a mayor who had not endorsed the Governor's reelection. The deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her role in this scandal.

In addition to being a former staffer to a Republican-elected official, Mr. Matey is a longtime member of the Federalist Society. But just because a nominee meets the ideological litmus tests of the Republican Party and the Federalist Society doesn't mean he has the experience and judgment to be a good circuit court judge. More likely, it is a sign the nominee will be an ideological judge.

New Jersey's two Senators opposed Mr. Matey's nomination, but the White House and Senate Republicans plowed right through with this controversial nominee.

Also this week, Senator McConnell has scheduled a vote on D.C. Circuit nominee Neomi Rao. The DC Circuit is often considered the second most important court in the land, and typically the nominees to this court bring with them a wealth of legal and judicial experience.

Ms. Neomi Rao has virtually no practical experience in law. She has never tried a case in court. She has never argued an appeal in court. She has never made an appearance in an American court, and she has filed one court brief in her entire career.

How in the world could someone suggest that this woman get a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land, never having tried a case, never having argued an appeal, never having made an appearance in the court, and having filed only one court brief in her entire career?

She was a political appointee of the President, working at the Agency known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. When she was there, she set out to rescind a lot of Federal regulations-- regulations, however, that might have been better left on the books-- that protected workers, the environment, and Americans facing discrimination. She was out to put an end to those regulatory protections.

She has been an academic. She has written a lot. In the year 2009, she wrote: ``The President may also decide not to follow Supreme Court precedent, and in the rare instance, may decide against the enforcement of a particular judgment.''

That would be considered a radical statement by most standards. It is a radical view of Executive power that Ms. Rao put forward. It flies in the face of Supreme Court rules and decisions, where the final word on constitutional interpretation was decided and established two centuries ago in Marbury v. Madison.

Ms. Rao has also published a number of articles in college, in which I can't even describe to you what she was thinking. They were shocking and inflammatory writings on issues involving race, sexual orientation, sexual assault, and date rape.

In April of 1993, this woman--destined for the circuit court and a lifetime appointment, where she will use her judgment on a daily basis to decide the outcomes of cases and the legal framework of America-- wrote: ``Date rape exemplifies the attempts of the nurture feminists to develop an artificial, alternative world in which women are free from sexual danger and `no always means no.' ''

In October of 1994, she wrote of date rape survivors: ``If she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.''

In September of 1994, she wrote that a group at Yale called the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Co-Op was ``spreading myths about AIDS.''

In November of 1993, she wrote:

Myths of sexual and racial oppression propagate themselves,

create hysteria, and finally lead to the formation of some

whining new group. One can only hope to scream,

``Perspective, just a little perspective, darling!''

These are a few examples of writings, which are difficult to describe in the fairest terms and inflammatory at the least.

While she wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee apologizing for some of these writings, what does it say about her values, her thinking, and whether she should be in this legal position for the rest of her life?

The bottom line is this. Ms. Rao has minimal practical experience in the law. Her legal views are beyond extreme, and her personal views, as reflected in her own personal writings, are deeply troubling.

I would like to say to the President and those who are in charge of picking his nominees: Please, isn't there a good Republican conservative somewhere in this area who has actually been in a courtroom, who has actually made an appearance in a case, who has maybe even tried a case, who has maybe even filed a motion, or who would know a courthouse if they saw it and not on television? Is that too much to ask for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land?

This nominee may be ideologically perfect for somebody who decided she was destined for this court, but this nomination is not a perfection when it comes to the legal system in America. It is an imperfection, which, if approved by the Senate, is going to be with us for a lifetime.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, China is no doubt a Communist country. It also has the largest population on Earth, which means it has the largest consumer market on Earth. It is a growing economy, although it has had a significant slowdown in the previous couple of years. It is a $400 billion market for the United States currently, in our trade, and it is a significant place of trade when dealing with agriculture in particular.

We have a lot of issues and differences with China, but we should be able to work out those differences long term, as we do with every other nation. We have to resolve some of these things.

I am proud that the administration is full force taking on the issue of China. Over the past couple of decades, every administration has tried to work out some kind of ongoing conversation with China on trade, and all of them have been somewhat successful, but significant issues are still prevailing. This administration has had a singular focus on trade in dealing with China and trying to resolve those issues with them, and I hope it is successful long term. I hope that we will be very specific in how we actually handle that strategy and that at the end of it, we will still be openly trading and reducing some of those barriers.

It is a Communist country. It doesn't always play by the rules. It also uses some of the rules to its own advantage in ways unlike any other country. For instance, when they joined the WTO--the World Trade Organization--they self-declared themselves as a ``developing nation.'' Developing nations are able to waive a lot of the World Trade Organization rules because they are developing. May I remind this body that China is the second largest economy in the world--second only to ours? They are not a developing nation. They have used the rules of WTO to call themselves developing so they do not have to live up to the international standard of basic trade.

On March 22, 2018, President Trump signed a Memorandum on Actions by the United States related to what is called a 301 investigation. They are targeting what the White House calls ``economic aggression'' from China. Let me give some specifics on that.

China uses joint venture requirements on any foreign investment. They want to have ownership in those companies actually doing business there. They put pressure on technology firms to transfer their technology to China if they are going to actually sell to China. The result of that is that they may not take the product that is manufactured there, that those original companies sell back to the United States, but they will take that information and then actually sell to other parts of the world from that stolen information from a technology transfer.

Akin to that, China maintains unfair licensing practices. Typically, in other parts of the world, our intellectual property that we have is guarded by that nation, or we actually have a licensing agreement with them that is fair market value. Not so with China. They put pressure on entities and actually cheat and steal our intellectual property at times. That doesn't happen with every company but especially certain types of firms, where, long term, China wants to produce it on their own rather than buy it from other countries. If that production is done in China, China will take the intellectual property, and the plan is clearly to then take that intellectual property and use it for themselves in the days ahead.

China is notorious for supporting cyber intrusions to take the information that they can't get, especially from American companies or Western companies. If there is a design they are interested in, whether that be an airplane or 3D printing or whatever it may be that is designed somewhere else, they reach in and try to hack and steal it. This is not recent; this has been going on for quite a while. In 2014, the Department of Justice indicted five Chinese military actors for cyber espionage against multiple U.S. corporations. Recently, in 2017, the Department of Justice charged three Chinese nationals with hacking and theft of trade secrets. And it goes on and on.

Just in the past couple of weeks, the World Trade Organization has agreed with the United States in our complaint against China and how they handle agriculture subsidies. Agriculture subsidies from any country are limited in that country, but China uses large ag subsidies through their farmers and ag companies to subsidize those products with state taxes. Let me give an example of that. Thirty-two percent of the return for rice in China is a government subsidy back to rice farmers.

I have heard folks say: Well, in the United States, we also have a farm program. We have a farm bill. We provide subsidies as well.

That is true, but our rice farmers have a 2-percent subsidy. Chinese rice farmers have a 32-percent subsidy.

The World Trade Organization agreed with us on this, and they have determined that China is in violation and the United States can retaliate on that.

China is using that policy and abusing that policy on subsidizing. It is not only causing problems in China and with trade with China and their pricing, what they sell for, it is also causing uncertainty worldwide. Let me give a for-instance. Cotton farming. Oklahoma is big in cotton farming, but China has oversubsidized cotton for years through its cotton farmers, and so they are overproducing what they need or what they can sell. Currently,

60 percent of the world's cotton supplies are stacked up in China, just in piles, not being used anywhere, but because China is subsidizing people to produce it, they are overproducing it in mass quantities. They have nowhere to send it, and they are just stacking cotton up in piles. The same thing with wheat. Forty percent of the world's wheat supplies are currently piled up in stacks in China. That destabilizes worldwide wheat prices and worldwide cotton prices because no one knows what China is going to do with that massive stack. WTO has considered them to be in violation for that, and we are allowed to reach back and retaliate.

The United States is not the only one watching China's trade policies and how they actually interact and the subsidies they give; the rest of the world sees this same issue with China. They would engage with us more to cooperate and push back on China, but currently, we have so many steel and aluminum tariffs on our friends around the world that they are not engaging with us to the level they could be to have a clear focus against China.

We need to not isolate our friends but gather friends and say that China and their policies are clearly a worldwide issue, and it needs to be resolved. Worldwide collaboration is going to be the only way that we are going to really isolate an economy as large as China.

I encourage our administration to resolve trade issues worldwide and resolve tariff issues with our friends worldwide. Instead of saying it is a national security threat with Canada and Mexico and others, and so we need to have steel and aluminum tariffs, see the real national security threat that we have from China, and gather a cooperative group and focus on that one area.

One of those areas is those 301 tariffs that I mentioned before. Any tariffs that go into place must first and foremost not hurt American consumers, American companies, and American workers. My concern is that 301 tariffs--as they have grown--will hurt and are currently hurting American consumers, American employees, and American companies.

The 301 tariffs--these are products that are manufactured in China. They are often designed so the engineering, the marketing, all of those things, the design of those--the intellectual property is here in the United States. Companies in the United States look for manufacturing expertise. They find expertise in certain types of products, like electronics, lighting, and other things, where there is a lot of that manufacturing and expertise--in China. It is a natural thing to say: There is a large body of groups and individuals and technology that is already there to do it. Let's do the manufacturing there and the design and engineering here.

It makes sense just on the supply chain function.

This administration has laid down tariffs--so far, three different tiers of tariffs.

The first tier. Every American company was allowed to say ``Is there any other place that can do it?'' and to ask for exclusions through that process. If they could find exclusions, they could petition the government and get out of it.

The second tier. They were also allowed to ask for exclusions through the process, to ask for basically a waiver, to say: This is the best place to do it. There is no other competition. There is no one pressuring us not to do it here.

But when the third and largest tier came out--$200 billion in products--no exclusion process was given for these American companies. A 10-percent tariff was laid down on these companies. Here is what that means. If you are a company that produces a consumer electronic or lighting or one of the other resources that is manufactured in China, most of the people you are selling it to--you made a contract a year or two ago on what the price would be.

Whether selling to Lowe's or Home Depot or Walmart or Best Buy or whatever it may be, you made a deal about how much you are going to sell that product for and how much you are going to sell. With a 10- percent tariff laid down, who pays that tariff? It is not going to be the end user initially because the contract has already been made. It is not going to be the Chinese manufacturing location. It is going to be the companies doing the production in the United States. The American workers and the American companies pay the brunt of all of those, and, by the way, there is no way to file an exemption on this group. For $200 billion worth of products, Americans are actually facing the brunt of that.

So far, Americans have paid $12 billion in tariffs. It is not punishing the Chinese; it is punishing us. By the end of the year, if this continues, those contracts will have run out, and they will be repricing consumer electronics products all over the country, and the American consumer will be the one to pay higher prices on this. So 301 tariffs disproportionately hurt those in the middle class and those in poverty who have fixed incomes. This needs to be resolved.

First and foremost, there needs to be a way to have a waiver process. As we have done in the first two sections, there is no opportunity to get it out of the third and largest group. It is a reasonable thing for American companies to say: How can we actually produce this?

I have partnered with Senator Coons in the Senate and Representatives Kind and Walorski in the House, and we put together a basic bill dealing with import tax relief, dealing with this 301, laying down for the first time how we would actually manage tariffs in the days ahead and what exclusion process there would be and has to be.

It is reasonable to have a predictable level to benefit the American consumer, especially those in poverty and with fixed incomes, and to benefit American workers. We can't have tariffs on a foreign country that actually hurt American workers. That is an issue we still have to resolve. I am glad to have a partnership with Senator Coons to work on that, and we hope to get that done this year to guard workers for the future.

Along with that, in any trade negotiations, we have what is called trade promotion authority. We have basic standards. An example would be environmental concerns. We don't want to work with another country that is ignoring environmental concerns. We are concerned about where we are in the environment--the air we breathe and the water we drink. That is important to us as Americans because we want to protect our families. We understand it pushes up the cost of some products, but the long-term benefit is greater, and we are very careful in evaluating our regulations. When we overregulate and it drives up costs, we push back on that, saying that we don't want to overregulate and drive up costs, but we want to have clean air and water.

For the Chinese, that is not so. In many areas of China, you can't breathe, and on a regular daily basis people wear masks over their faces because of the exhaust, the fumes, and the toxic air they breathe, based on their limitations on the environmental quality of the air. It is becoming a worldwide issue because of the amount of trash the Chinese are allowing to go into the Pacific Ocean, filling the Pacific Ocean with plastic and trash.

Part of our trade promotion authority and one of the agreements we have is to lean in and have dialogue with individuals we trade with, saying that we want to resolve trade issues, but we also want to protect our environment, and we think it is a reasonable thing to do.

It is reasonable, as Americans, to place a high value on religious liberty and human rights. It is part of our trade promotion authority and, in fact, an area I worked very hard to get implemented as a part of our trade promotion authority--that when we negotiate trade issues with countries, we also deal with the basic issue of human rights and freedom of religion.

We, as Americans, believe that our religious belief is our most precious private property, and no government should be able to step in and steal private property. Your most private possession is your faith. Every individual should have the right to have any faith they choose, be able to change their faith, or have no faith at all. That should be their choice, but that is not so in China right now.

In fact, in 1999, the State Department designated China as what is called ``a country of particular concern.'' This

deals with the issue of religious freedom in their country and China's aggressive move to limit religious freedom in their country. Recently, President Xi has worked toward secularization of religion to try to make everything in the country--every area--equal and the same, stripping away religious symbols from buildings of all types, stripping away religious practice that is not approved by the Government of China. This discrimination has impacted Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, and Falun Gong practitioners. It has led to the destruction of houses of worship, demolition of religious educational institutions, restrictions in the practice and study of faith by people of whatever culture or language, restrictions on religious attire, religious rituals, and imprisonment of religious leaders and followers.

In fact, right now we are tracking the imprisonment of a pastor named Pastor Cao. Pastor Cao and his wife are American citizens, and his children are American citizens. He is allowed to have legal residency in the United States, but 2 years ago as of this month, he was imprisoned in China.

Pastor Cao has a hearing coming up on the 22nd of this month, and we hope for Pastor Cao and for his family that hearing happens. It has been postponed again and again.

On the 22nd of March, we anticipate the Chinese Government will have his hearing and will give him a moment to have this finally resolved. There is no reason for Pastor Cao to be in prison right now.

We don't want to see, in China, forced reeducation facilities, intimidation, lack of medical attention for people of faith. Let's see for the people of China what people worldwide have the opportunity to have--freedom of religion. In our trade conversations we think it is highly advisable to engage in that type of dialogue for people like Pastor Cao, whose children are looking forward to holding him in their arms again and for him to be released.

China is an important part of the worldwide conversation. They are a powerful nation. We should be able to work together on key issues. The Chinese Government needs to determine how they are going to trade and if they are a developing country or if they are really a worldwide leader.

We need to determine how we are going to do fair trade with them, and we need to determine who they are going to be on the world stage, dealing with human rights and dignity. It is not all about sameness of a world; this is about the power of the individual within the country.

I am sure the people of China are very proud of their country. We would love to engage with the people of China, and we appreciate their engagement with us as we receive thousands of Chinese students and visitors every single year.

This is a point where we should resolve the trade issues that have been lingering for decades now, and we hope we can get to an agreement that is right, from our administration being attentive so that the tariffs don't hurt our own citizens to the Chinese economy that is slowing down due to the ongoing trade conversation. Let's work toward the benefit of all of our people to see if we can't resolve trade issues together.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, one of the things I have noticed over the years that I have given these climate speeches is that corporate engagement on climate change has been one-sided, let's just say. It is clear who my adversaries have been--Big Oil, the coal lobby, the Koch brothers, and some very powerful corporate trade associations--the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the most powerful of all, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, so-called. In my view, it is more properly called the U.S. Chamber of Carbon. These adversaries have managed a big-money campaign, first, to sow doubt about or outright deny climate change and, second, to block action in Congress and Federal agencies to limit carbon pollution.

The International Monetary Fund just estimated fossil fuel subsidies in the United States at $650 billion for 2015. Yes, that is ``billion'' with a ``b.'' When you are defending that kind of subsidy, you spare no expense, which explains the millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry and its trade group cronies in opposing climate bills, in supporting phony climate denial front groups, and in funding election attacks against candidates who might try to limit carbon pollution.

While the fossil fuel industry has been running roughshod around Washington, the rest of corporate America has sat on its hands. Even companies with gauzy website offerings on climate and strong sustainability policies within the company have done virtually nothing to support climate action in Congress. I could name names, but that would make it a very long speech because, basically, everybody in corporate America has been absent here.

There are, at long last, signs that corporate America is waking up to the climate fight it has been losing in Washington. When and if corporate America finally engages in the serious support of climate action, Congress will, once again, spring to life. After a 10-year drought, we could again see bipartisan legislation to reduce carbon pollution.

Why this new spurt of corporate engagement on climate change?

Look at the avalanche of warnings about the financial risks climate change poses to the global economy. In just the last few months, here are some of the warnings: 34 central banks, including Canada's, France's, and England's; a group of major reinsurers; the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; the investment giant BlackRock; EPA economists and scientists; the Urban Land Institute; the investment advisory firm Mercer; the European Central Bank; and the investment advisory firm Sarasin & Partners. All have separately warned about climate change's tanking the economy.

There are agricultural as well as financial warnings. In April, the big food companies--Danone, Mars, Nestle, and Unilever--announced that they would begin advocating for Federal action on climate change. They see the risk climate change poses to the world's agricultural and water supplies.

Their preferred solution? A price on carbon:

Establish an ambitious carbon pricing system that sends a

clear signal to the marketplace to reduce economy-wide

greenhouse gas emissions aligned with the Paris Agreement

goal to keep global temperature increase well below 2-degrees

centigrade. An appropriate carbon pricing structure should be

transparent in how prices are set, equitable in how revenue

is appropriated to mitigate costs on the most vulnerable

communities, and built to ensure our global competitiveness.

I fully agree.

Following on those food companies' heels, Microsoft announced that it, too, would begin advocating in Congress for Federal climate action. It joined the Climate Leadership Council--a group of economists, policymakers, businesses, and environmental groups--formed in 2017, to advance a price on carbon. Like the food companies, Microsoft sees a Federal price on carbon as the best policy to tackle climate change.

Then, in May, 13 more companies announced the CEO Climate Dialogue to advocate for climate action. Once again, these companies declared that they supported a price on carbon:

An economy-wide price on carbon is the best way to use the

power of the market to achieve carbon reduction goals, in a

simple, coherent and efficient manner. We desire to do this

at the least cost to the economy and households. Markets will

also spur innovation, and create and preserve quality jobs in

a growing low-carbon economy.

Note that last sentence: ``Markets will also spur innovation, and create and preserve quality jobs in a growing low-carbon economy.''

One of the weird things about all of the remorseless opposition to climate action out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers is that there is a heck of a lot of commerce and a heck of a lot of manufacturing in climate change solutions. So why are they so against them? It is an anomaly but not the only anomaly in climate denial.

Republican colleagues who wax poetic about the free market seem not to notice this massive $650 billion subsidy for carbon pollution. That is a big thing not to notice if you are serious about the free market. The last gasp of climate obstruction here in Congress is to talk about innovation as the magic climate solution. Here is the rub: Without a clear market signal in the form of a price on carbon, there will be little incentive to innovate. How do you innovate away a $650 billion annual subsidy? How does the market work to reduce carbon pollution when carbon pollution is free? Innovations like carbon capture and storage aren't cheap. There is not much of a business case for these innovations--it is hard to see the revenue proposition--unless we put a price on carbon. Then innovation happens.

Am I wrong about market theory?

Let's go to Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning patron saint of market theory. He was unambiguous about pricing pollution.

He was asked: Was there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

He responded:

Yes, there's a case for the government to do something.

There's always a case for the government to do something

about it . . . when what two people do affects a third party

[ . . . ] But the question is, What's the best way to do it?

And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in

Washington write rules and regulations. . . . The way to do

it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants . . . and

make an incentive for . . . manufacturers and for consumers

to keep down the amount of pollution.

So, yes, putting a price on pollution to give an incentive to innovation is core free market principle.

I happen to share that faith in the power of the market to drive innovation when the market is working. But it is not going to happen when the market is distorted by a $650 billion subsidy.

That is why I filed a carbon pricing bill to help correct that fossil fuel subsidy and balance the market, so those principles can go to work.

At the end of May, 75 companies came to Capitol Hill to advocate for carbon pricing. Together, those companies operate in all 50 States, have annual revenues over $2.5 trillion, and have a market value of nearly $2.5 trillion.

These companies met with dozens of lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, to make the case for a price on carbon--that it is the commonsense policy to dramatically reduce carbon pollution, drive the transition to a low carbon economy, and grow jobs and the economy. There is enormous economic and scientific support for that argument. There is little opposition to that argument or at least little opposition that can't be traced back to the mischief of the fossil fuel industry and its front groups. I hope my colleagues listened.

I also hope that other companies join in and help the American business community make climate action a

Washington, DC, priority. It can't just be talk. The fossil fuel industry isn't going to just walk away from a $650 billion annual subsidy. To offset the millions spent by the fossil fuel bandits defending their license to pollute for free is going to require some real effort on the part of corporate America.

It is also going to take corporate America getting control over the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. The watchdog group InfluenceMap has analyzed business associations around the world. They found that the Chamber and NAM--the National Association of Manufacturers--are the worst--the worst--the most obstructive when it comes to climate action. Here they are, rock bottom: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers--tail end of the worst.

Why? Why are the Chamber and NAM the worst? If the majority of large companies in America support climate action, why do these two trade associations remain so opposed? Why are they the worst?

I strongly recommend that if you are a corporate member of one of these two organizations--if you are a corporate member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if you are a corporate member of the National Association of Manufacturers--that you demand an audit--that you demand an audit of these trade associations' funding because here is what I expect you will find: You will find that while they had you out on the front porch as a prop for the neighbors to see, they were in the back room, secretly pocketing big money from fossil fuel interests to stop climate legislation. My belief is that the fossil fuel industry has given both the Chamber and NAM so much money that those two organizations have chumped--chumped--their member organizations by ignoring their views on climate in order to keep the money pouring in secretly from the fossil fuel industry.

The members are in a position to find out. Ask. Demand an audit. Find out if you have been chumped by the organizations you support.

This trade association obstruction by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers has to change, but it will not until these trade associations' member companies demand a stop to the obstruction and demand real support for carbon pricing.

Let me close with a word of warning. The alarms are ringing loudly. As one scientist recently said: ``The ocean is screaming.'' Financial crises loom. Our failure over the last three decades to address the climate crisis is a black mark against both our democracy and our system of free market capitalism. Creepy-crawly political subservience to fossil fuel interests has degraded American democracy, and free market capitalism is conspicuously failing to meet the climate challenge. That can change, but it has to change fast.

More than three decades ago, Representative Claudine Schneider and Senator John Chafee, both Republicans from Rhode Island, introduced comprehensive legislation to address climate change--from Republicans, three decades ago. Since then, the fossil fuel industry's campaign to obstruct climate progress has succeeded, but at a terrible price. Every day that we fail to address our climate crisis is a day that we mortgage our children's and our grandchildren's futures.

Through these long decades, the good guys in corporate America have been conspicuously absent. This recent activity makes me optimistic-- optimistic that the business community seems to be finally stepping up and optimistic that bipartisanship can be restored.

Eyes are beginning to flutter open around here. Now it is time not just to wake up but to get to work.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

As the senior Republican woman in the Senate today, I am pleased to begin a series of speeches, along with my good friend from California, the senior Democratic woman Senator, Mrs. Dianne Feinstein, to commemorate a significant milestone in our Nation's history. One hundred years ago today, the Senate finally passed the 19th Amendment, which affirmed the right of women to vote in elections.

All of us recall that in 1775, as the Second Continental Congress was forging a new Nation conceived in liberty, Abigail Adams admonished her husband John to ``remember the ladies.'' Despite Abigail Adam's advice, it took nearly a century and a half for women to achieve their rightful place as full U.S. citizens.

On June 4, 1919, the U.S. Senate passed the 19th Amendment to our Constitution. The courage and determination exhibited by generations of women and men were rewarded in just two sentences:

The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any

State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to

enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That is it. Those are the words of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote.

It is an honor today to join my 24 women Senate colleagues in cosponsoring a resolution commemorating this centennial. The yellow roses that we are wearing are a historic and enduring symbol of the victory that we celebrate today.

It has often been said, as Emerson put it, that ``there is properly no history; only biography.'' The story of women's suffrage is an anthology of remarkable biographies.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott led the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. This marked the first time that American women formally demanded the vote. The convention produced the landmark Declaration of Sentiments. Using the Declaration of Independence as a template, it states: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men and women are created equal.''

The early women's rights movement was closely linked to the abolition of slavery. Lucretia Mott made her position clear. She said:

``I have no idea of submitting tamely to injustice

inflicted either on me or on the slave. I will oppose it with

all the moral powers with which I am endowed.''

Among the most vigorous advocates of women's suffrage were those who knew too well the lash of oppression, the escaped slaves Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman.

Another very important incident in the march of history occurred in 1872. Susan B. Anthony and 14 other women in Rochester, New York, illegally voted in that year's Presidential election. They were promptly arrested. Susan B. Anthony was put on trial, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of $100 or face imprisonment. Imagine--for voting.

She bravely refused, saying that she would never submit to this ``high-handed outrage upon my citizen's rights.'' The authorities wisely chose not to pursue collecting the fine.

Suffrage leaders realized that nothing short of a constitutional amendment would do--one modelled after the 15th Amendment, which granted the vote to all men regardless of race.

With new leaders--such as Carrie Chapman Catt and, later, Alice Paul--stepping forward, a strategy was developed to use every peaceful instrument to change the hearts and minds of political leaders and the public. In addition to marches, rallies, and petitions, they enlisted the power of the pulpit and the press in their just cause.

It took more than four decades for this strategy to succeed, and strong Maine women played key roles. Katherine Reed Balentine, the daughter of the legendary Speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas Brackett Reed, led the Maine Woman Suffrage Association. Author and activist Florence Brooks Whitehouse became a nationally known suffrage organizer and offered these words to opponents of this cause: ``This you must know; the world is mine, as yours.''

I am proud to report that when the 19th Amendment came to the Senate floor on that historic day, exactly 100 years ago, both of Maine's Senators, Republicans Bert Fernald and Frederick Hale, were among the 56 voting in favor. Following Senate passage, all

that remained was for 36 of the 48 States to vote for ratification.

Maine became the 19th State to ratify the 19th Amendment, but it wasn't easy. An earlier popular referendum on women's suffrage in Maine got clobbered at the polls by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. Of course, women were not allowed to vote on their own future, which obviously skewed the results.

Recognizing the inherent unfairness of the situation, Maine's Republican Governor, Carl Milliken, called an emergency session of the State legislature and ushered the measure through by a vote of 72 to 68.

By the summer of 1920, only one more State was needed to reach the magic number of 36. The Nation's eyes were on the State of Tennessee, where the amendment was before the legislature. The outlook was discouraging. After two rollcall votes, suffrage opponents, who wore red roses on their lapels, were in a dead heat with the yellow rose supporters. If the measure failed to pass in Tennessee, the 19th Amendment would not be ratified.

At the last possible moment, the youngest Tennessee lawmaker, Harry Burn, despite the red rose that he wore--which indicated you were in opposition--cast his vote in favor of ratification.

After evading an angry mob by climbing out of a third floor window in the Maine Capitol Building and hiding in the attic, Representative Burn explained that he changed his mind after he received a letter from his mother, telling him: ``Don't forget to be a good boy'' and to do the right thing.

I am sure the Presiding Officer is very familiar with this story.

One of my inspirations in public service, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, once addressed the question of what is a woman's proper place. Her famous short answer was this: ``Everywhere.''

The rest of her answer describes the importance of the struggle and the success that we celebrate today. She said: ``If there is any proper place for women today, it is that of alert and responsible citizens in the fullest sense of the word.''

It is a great pleasure to join my colleagues--particularly the senior Democratic woman Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California--in saluting those great, courageous, and persistent women who, over many long decades and through much difficulty, guided our Nation to that proper place by giving women the long, overdue right to be full citizens in this country--the right to vote.

Madam President, it is now my great pleasure to yield to my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for her remarks and yield time now to the Senator from Illinois, Ms. Duckworth.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I recognize the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her eloquent comments.

I now yield to Senator Murray.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her good remarks today.

I am very pleased to yield time to the Senator from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for giving us such a great history lesson, and I appreciate her remarks.

Next on our list of speakers is Senator Ernst followed by Senator Shaheen.

I yield to Senator Ernst of Iowa.

Mr. President, before I yield to my friend and neighbor from New Hampshire, I recognize, in the back of the Chamber, a truly extraordinary woman, an outstanding former U.S. Senator who served in this Chamber from 1987 to 2017, some 30 years, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. She has served on the Commission that has worked very hard to make sure we commemorate this centennial of women's suffrage, and she has been a mentor and friend to all of us who had the pleasure of serving with her.

I welcome Senator Mikulski back to the U.S. Senate, which was her home for so many years and where she still has so many friends and admirers, of whom I count myself one.

The Chair is a very wise man.

Now I yield to Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, and it is now my pleasure to yield time to the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nebraska for her very kind comments and her eloquent remarks, and I am now pleased to yield time to the Senator from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.

Mr. President, I am now pleased to yield to the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito.

Madam President, earlier, I recognized Senator Barbara Mikulski, an outstanding leader and former colleague and member of the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission. I also want to acknowledge that there are other members of the Commission who are here with us today. We welcome them as they observe this debate, and we thank them for their hard work to make sure this significant occasion is recognized.

It is now my great pleasure to yield time to the Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell.

Madam President, I simply want to thank my colleagues for their participation today in bringing to the attention of the American people that this truly is a historic occasion, a date on which we celebrate the Senate's passage of the 19th Amendment granting women a long-overdue right to vote. I want to thank all of my colleagues who participated in the speeches. The history they brought from their individual States was fascinating indeed.

It is my understanding that we will now move to pass commemorative coin legislation introduced by the Senator from Tennessee.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, there are many reasons to care about our Federal judiciary. It touches all of us in our everyday lives even though we often fail to appreciate its enormous impact. No court of appeals in the United States is more important than the DC Circuit, and so few of the nominees whom we will consider in this body will be more important than Neomi Rao to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

It has a unique jurisdiction that makes it the court to most frequently hear challenges to the Federal Government's public protections. It considers issues of national consequence, ranging from workers' rights, nondiscrimination policies, consumer protections, immigration policies, money in politics, reproductive rights, access to healthcare, environmental justice, antitrust cases, and regulatory action, like the possible grounding of an unsafe airplane by the FAA.

I have called on the FAA to ground the 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9. I have asked the airlines to do it voluntarily. If the FAA does the right thing, as it should, and orders these planes grounded, its decision may be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and the safety of our skies and our airline passengers will hang in the balance. This is just one example of how the DC Circuit can matter not only to the lives of people within a particular geographic area but to, literally, the entire United States.

When I ask nominees questions that are designed to elicit their views, their opinions, their past positions, and their present policies, I expect direct, candid answers, but I received just the opposite from Neomi Rao on some of the critical, bedrock issues that are important to all of us in this Chamber when judging a nominee.

I asked Neomi Rao whether she thought Brown v. Board of Education--a pillar of our jurisprudence--was correctly decided. She declined to answer. She said she felt it was inappropriate for a nominee to the court to be giving views on specific cases. I asked her for her views and her position on that case. She declined to give them. She also declined to give them on Roe v. Wade and on Griswold v. Connecticut.

One of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee also has reservations about Neomi Rao's opinions in some of these cases. He fears that Ms. Rao actually supports a woman's right to choose and supports the legal doctrine of substantive due process. Unlike me, he met Ms. Rao in private, and he got straightforward answers about her views on those cases and on the underlying legal theories. She passed his test, the President's litmus test, and the test of those outside groups--extreme rightwing, conservative groups--that have been given authority as a result of the President's outsourcing of these decisions to, in effect, decide on the nominees to our highest Court.

She passed the test established by the President--that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

But as abhorrent and objectionable as I find many of her views and her failure to give straightforward answers, she has also written a number of very troubling articles and op-eds about her views on women's rights and women's healthcare. We have in this Chamber a term called ``confirmation conversion,'' and I thought Ms. Rao would completely disavow and abandon those pieces.

In an op-ed about date rape, she wrote: ``If [a woman] drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.'' In another op-ed criticizing aspects of feminism, Rao wrote that women ``must be thoroughly educated about the consequences of their sexuality in order to prevent such problems'' as date rape. From early in her career, these writings indicate that she believes women bear a major part of responsibility for date rape.

These writings are from early in her career, and I thought she would completely break with them and reject them, but she failed to do so. Only after the hearing did she disavow them, without directly apologizing, and that kind of confirmation conversion is inherently unbelievable.

Undermining her credibility even more are the actions she took later in her career--after those writings and before she was nominated.

She serves as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, also known as OIRA. Her job is to review all regulatory actions--all of them--proposed by the administration. In that capacity, Ms. Rao approved rescinding guidance provided to schools on how to address and prevent campus sexual assault. Under the new rules, sexual assault survivors would be required to undergo live cross-examination by their attacker's representative. In the course of an administrative proceeding, there would be cross-examination by the attacker's lawyer or other representative. Schools would be required to use a higher standard of proof for claims of sexual misconduct.

Under this administration's own analysis, these rules would have a profound, chilling effect on the number of campus sexual assault investigations that are conducted. That is the reason they are proposing the new rules--to discourage survivors from coming forward to seek justice.

It is not only Rao's early writings that stigmatize and blame women survivors of sexual assault; the recent policies she approved and authorized institutionalize these really regrettable and unacceptable views. Her deeply troubling positions on sexual assault and her victim- blaming rhetoric--which she tried to excuse initially as the reckless musings of a college student rather than breaking with them and rejecting them--place the

rights of women and others at risk. We should deny her confirmation.

Equally important, she has also used that position at OIRA to restrict reproductive rights.

Let's be clear. One of the important features of the Affordable Care Act is a requirement that health insurers cover contraceptives as an essential health benefit--no charge to consumers because it is an essential health benefit.

Last year, the Trump administration issued rules that would allow any and all private companies to deny contraception coverage if the CEO had a moral or religious objection. Two Federal courts found that the rules were illegal because they violate the due process clause--the legal process required by law to implement the new rules--and that objection was found to be an inadequate justification for, in effect, violating the rights of women who would seek that kind of care at no charge. As the head of OIRA, Neomi Rao not only approved of the substance of the new rules but was so committed to implementing them that she signed off on an illegal process to do so.

That is not all Neomi Rao has done to, in effect, discourage and deter reproductive health. The Department of Health and Human Services recently finalized a new title X regulation. Under this rule, ``Any organization that provides or refers patients for abortions is ineligible for title X funding to cover STD prevention, cancer screenings, and contraception.'' As with any rule, OIRA had to conduct a cost-benefit analysis in order to approve that rule, and I am deeply troubled by Rao's views and actions on reproductive rights that led her to approve that rule and encouraged and condoned the rule and its disastrous effects on women's rights and healthcare.

We are living in an era fraught with abuses of power, under a President who has shown nothing but disdain for the rule of law. In this dark and dangerous era, it is all the more important that we have someone willing to set limits on executive power to prevent an imperial Presidency.

In fact, Ms. Rao is a proponent of a fringe theory on executive power known as the unitary executive theory. She believes that the President, as the head of the executive branch, holds absolute control over executive power.

As recently as 2014, she outlined the implications of this theory in the Alabama Law Review. According to her, the President must be able to remove at his sole discretion all principal officers, including the heads of independent Agencies.

She has criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the independent counsel statute in effect at that time. In her view, the President must be able to fire at will anyone in the executive branch. In her view, that includes special prosecutors tasked with investigating wrongdoing by the President.

In 2016, she was interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. She was asked whether she believes the current special counsel regulations have similarly restrictive effect on executive power and whether the President can direct the actions of the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General. Her view? The Constitution vests all executive power in the President. He can direct his subordinates. He can fire the special counsel.

I hoped that during her confirmation proceedings, she would disavow those views. I asked her whether she thought the President could fire Robert Mueller, the current special counsel. She refused to answer my question.

That extreme view of Presidential power is deeply alarming when it is held by a member of one of the most important courts in the country, which may review decisions of that special counsel to subpoena the President or potentially indict the President or take other actions in the course of an investigation.

I am more than alarmed; I am strongly opposed to this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting no on final confirmation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.