Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes and that after I speak, Senator Wyden be recognized.

Mr. President, 6 months ago, on a beautiful June morning, just a few miles from here in Alexandria, VA, a man with a gun opened fire on me and several of my Republican colleagues.

In the chaotic aftermath of that awful morning, the gunman's purpose slowly became clear. Because of our beliefs and our political affiliation, this individual believed my colleagues and I should die. Since that day, I struggled to understand this thinking. How could any American look onto a field that June morning, where a bunch of middle- aged men were playing baseball, and see the enemy?

Some of the bombastic rhetoric being offered this week in response to the tax reform bill has given me pause. If you listen to some of the hyperbolic vitriol that opponents of this bill are producing, the attitude that nearly killed my friend Steve Scalise and threatened many more lives begins to make a perverse kind of sense.

When respectable public figures go on television or take to Twitter and announce that thousands, if not millions, of Americans are going to die as a direct result of the passage of a tax reform bill, what impact do we expect this to have on the thinking of many Americans? If a person takes such outlandish statements as true, attacking Members of Congress in support of the measure almost appears to be a moral action. This could lead someone to believe that killing a few legislators might save the lives of millions of Americans.

Beyond the physical danger of promoting such misinformation, these claims do grave harm to the legislative process. How are we expected to work together to achieve anything if one side's position is viewed as the end of America as we know it? One of my colleagues called this tax reform bill ``the worst bill in the history of Congress.''

Upon the bill's passage, one media pundit went so far as to encourage young Americans to flee their country and declared ``America died tonight.''

Full-throated and passionate debate should always be encouraged. We all love arguing the merits of supply-side economics, but this is not that. This is demonizing of the worst kind. It leaves us all in this body unable to engage in the kind of negotiations and compromise that Congress was created to foster.

To be clear, this is not a problem with one party or of one moment. During the public debate over the Affordable Care Act, Members of my party engaged in similar tactics. I was in the House Chamber when one of my Republican colleagues stood and yelled ``You lie'' at the President of the United States. The accusation that passage of healthcare reform legislation would result in so-called death panels was promoted far and wide by many Republicans. One conservative commentator suggested the government would begin educating seniors on how to end their own lives.

A Republican legislator claimed that the bill would put seniors in a position of being ``put to death by their government.'' This rhetoric was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

The threat posed to all of us and to the democratic process for giving in to extreme rhetoric is not theoretical. Some of us faced it on that baseball field in Alexandria in June, and all of us have witnessed its corrosive effect on Congress. I urge my colleagues, all of us, let's end this practice where raw politics drowns out the supplications of the better angels of our nature. Let us all be more humble as to our predictive powers when it comes to placing a value on the work we do here. In reality, this legislation will probably not turn out to be as good as the proponents assert, nor as bad as the opponents contend.

The country is watching. It is my hope that we--all of us--can eschew contempt and vitriol in our speech and be more measured in our tone.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 1:45 p.m. today, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Ho nomination and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I rise today because I believe that some here in Washington are under the illusion about what would happen if we were to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``New Counterterrorism Guidance''.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Margaret Weichert, of Georgia, to be Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 to conduct a hearing on S. 2152, ``Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2017'' and on the following nominations: Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, David Ryan Stras, of Minnesota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Andrei Iancu, of California, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and Duane A. Kees, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas, Stephen R. McAllister, to be United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, Ronald A. Parsons, Jr., to be United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota, Ryan K. Patrick, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, and Michael B. Stuart, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, all of the Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 2 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Smith, a Coast Guard fellow from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, I just want to say on the record how much I have enjoyed serving with the Senator from Alabama. He has meant a great deal to this institution, to this body during his short time here, and it is sad to see him go.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, as under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with increasing concern about the uncertain future facing DACA recipients. There are nearly 800,000 DACA recipients. They are children who were brought across the border, through no fault of their own, years and years ago. There are nearly 800,000 across the country and nearly 50,000 just in Arizona alone. They have protections now from deportation, but those protections will run out around the first of March.

Despite the sense of urgency to solve the problem by the end of the year, there is very little legislative progress to show for it. The time has come for us to work together to deliver a real solution. We don't need partisan bills that send a message; we need bipartisan solutions that can pass the Senate.

We have spent so much time operating under reconciliation that it is worth reminding people that this measure will need 60 votes in order to succeed. So much of the legislation we have been considering has been under reconciliation, with just a 51-vote margin being sufficient. That will not be the case with a fix for DACA. We need to get 60 votes. That means if we hope to protect DACA recipients, both sides will need to compromise.

These individuals whom we seek to help are students, employees, colleagues, and friends. They don't know any other home but the United States. They have embraced the values of hard work and perseverance, and, in turn, their communities have embraced them as their own. Some of the most compelling pleas on behalf of these young people have come from those who know them best. These kids are not just Americans in their own eyes; they are Americans in the eyes of their friends, their classmates, their teachers, and their coworkers.

We all recognize that these kids were brought here, as I mentioned, through no fault of their own. No one wants to see them deported. As leaders of a nation of immigrants, we need to work together and deliver a chance for them to have a bright future. We need workable legislation that can realistically be passed and signed into law. We don't need to make a statement; we need to make a law.

There are many challenges facing us with regard to immigration, but protecting these young people should not be one of those challenges. This should be the easy lift.

I hope we can all work together in a bipartisan way to find a solution for these kids who deserve a solution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S.2155 ``The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Act'' and the nomination of Jerome H. Powell, of Maryland, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Timothy R. Petty, of Indiana, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and Linda Capuano, of Texas, to be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the following nominations: nominations of Eric M. Ueland, of Oregon, to be an Under Secretary (Management), and James Randolph Evans, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, both of the Department of State.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President, Congress, and Shared Authority''.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Cost of Prescription Drugs: An examination of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report `Making Medicines Affordable: A National Imperative' ''.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Johnny Collett, of Kentucky, to be Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, both of the Department of Education, and Scott A. Mugno, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary, and William Beach, of Kansas, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, both of the Department of Labor.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 3 p.m., in room SH-219 to hold a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Energy

The Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a very important hearing last week regarding the 2001 authorization for use of military force, the law that serves as the legal underpinning for the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban. I am grateful to our witnesses, Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson, for making themselves available to the members of the committee and for the straightforward and honest answers they provided to us.

As we have gotten further and further away from the September 11 attacks that resulted in the passage of the 2001 AUMF, I have urged Congress to take a fresh look at that authorization. When four soldiers died recently in Niger, I think most Americans--and even some Members of Congress--were shocked to learn that we even had troops in that country. Our troops were not there under the auspices of the 2001 AUMF, but considering that they were reportedly ambushed and killed at the hands of an Islamic State affiliate, questions have been raised about where our forces are and where they are at war with terrorists versus when they are simply conducting train-and-equip or other missions of that sort.

It was encouraging that nearly every member of the Foreign Relations Committee was in attendance at that hearing where the witnesses testified that the administration believes it has ample authority to prosecute the war on terrorism and does not need a new AUMF.

I can't say I was surprised to hear that testimony. No administration, Republican or Democratic, will ever willingly cede the broad authority given to the executive branch 3 days after the September 11 attack. If they were to say that we need new authorization, they would be conceding that they haven't been acting with authorization all this time. So they are never going to say that we need a new AUMF.

What has surprised me is that there are Members of this body, the Senate, who are content to let this 16-year old authorization remain in place. Some have even suggested that any updates to the AUMF can be made using the appropriations process. Are we really going to start using policy riders on annual spending bills to approve of sending troops into harm's way? We rarely even vote on individual spending bills anymore, let alone controversial policy riders to those spending bills. Are we truly willing to leave it to the members of the Appropriations Committee to update a law that has put our servicemembers into harm's way, particularly those of us on the authorizing committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? I hope that we more jealously guard our prerogatives than that.

Our inaction on updating the 2001 law has already relegated the role of the Senate in authorizing force to that of a cog in the feedback loop. I would submit that we in the Senate ought to aspire to be more than that.

For 16 years, Congress has been all too willing to let successive administrations use those broad authorities to address new threats and to deploy U.S. troops to new places. Beyond Afghanistan, our troops have deployed all over the world, to places such as Yemen, the Philippines, Somalia, and Libya to fight al-Qaida and its affiliates.

We have also sent forces to Syria and back to Iraq to defeat ISIS, a group that didn't even exist in 2001. We need to fight terrorism overseas, and I am not suggesting that the United States should shy away from these battles. To the contrary, I believe Congress should do its duty in supporting these missions by voting to authorize them.

In the 16 years since the passage of the 2001 AUMF, approximately 300 Members of the House who voted on it are no longer with that Chamber. In the Senate, of those Senators who voted on the original AUMF, only 23 Senators remain in their seats today. That leaves approximately 70 percent of the entire Congress that has never cast a vote to authorize military force abroad. Yet, over the years, deployments have continued to new places, combating new foes.

The United States is strongest when we speak with one voice. Therefore, Congress must have some buy-in on these missions. Our allies and other adversaries need to know that the war on terrorism has the support of Congress. More importantly, our troops need to know that Congress is behind them.

I know the concept of passing a new, updated AUMF is a tricky one. This is not a conventional war against a sovereign nation in which victory is easily defined. Instead, we are fighting an ideological enemy that has no sovereignty and which, over the years, has moved all over the world, resulting in many splinter factions that could change their name at any time with ease.

This new kind of war requires a new kind of authorization, one that allows Congress's continued buy-in and increases its oversight. Right now, we have neither of these.

After working on this issue for several years, Senator Tim Kaine and I have introduced legislation that we think gets us in the right place. Our bill would authorize the use of military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban

and ISIS. It authorizes force against affiliates of those groups and requires the President to report to Congress when he initiates force against a new group he designates as being associated with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or ISIS. Military operations can begin as soon as the President has notified Congress. There is no time-lapse required.

If Congress doesn't agree with the President's designation, our bill allows a 60-day timeframe during which any Member can bring a resolution of disapproval to the floor under expedited procedures, and adoption of such measure by both Houses would result in the end of military operations against that group.

Our bill adopts the same process with regard to geography to allow Congress to disapprove of military operations in a particular country. I recognize that traditional declarations of war and other authorizations of military force haven't referred to a particular geographic area in which operations can take place. But all of our previous military engagements were against sovereign nations with armed forces, not terrorist groups that can pop up in any country at any time.

If Congress is going to authorize the use of force, we ought to know in which countries U.S. troops are operating. Requiring the President to notify Congress when he begins operations against one of these terrorist groups in a new country is an important check on the executive branch to ensure there is no overreach.

The bar for disapproving the President's decision is high-- appropriately so. It would require two-thirds of the House and the Senate to disagree with the President on his decisions with regard to new associated forces or new countries.

Right now, Congress has very little to say over who or where our military fights. The only option available is to cut off appropriations, and history has demonstrated that simply is not realistic or appropriate.

The most recent example of this, as some of my colleagues will recall, was in 2011, when the Obama administration joined the NATO operation to help rebels in Libya topple Muammar Qadhafi. The administration never made the case to Congress as to what U.S. interests were served by U.S. involvement. As a result, many Members on both sides of the aisle publicly opposed our intervention in Libya.

Yet, when the clock ran out on the time constraints set forth in the War Powers Resolution, Congress did not turn off appropriations because we can't just pull the rug out from underneath servicemembers when they are in harm's way overseas. The ``turning off appropriations'' approach simply hasn't worked in the past and is not likely to work in the future.

We need real congressional buy-in and oversight over a conflict that has morphed considerably since 2001--and which we are now being told is morphing to a new continent. S.J. Res. 43 gives us just that.

I should note that the bill also includes a 5-year sunset. The sunset is not intended to serve as a notice that the war on terrorism will end in 5 years. It is there to require Congress to put its skin in the game by voting on authorizing force.

The administration has signaled its objection to this provision. They think that the war on terrorism could be undermined if terrorists think they just have to wait us out.

I worry more that the lack of congressional buy-in undermines the war right here at home. Seventy percent of Congress has no skin in the game at all. We are free to criticize the President, whether the President is Republican or Democrat. That is not right.

We ought to have responsibility here. We are the article I branch. We are the branch tasked with declaring war and authorizing use of force. We shouldn't shirk our responsibility. We can't let history repeat itself and go for another 16 years without voting for the use of force against terrorists. That is why I support a sunset on any new or updated AUMF.

Perhaps the best feature of the Flake-Kaine measure is that it is bipartisan. That is an essential feature. I think we can all agree that passing an updated AUMF along party lines is perhaps the only thing worse than letting the status quo remain. I commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, for signaling that we will move ahead with the markup of the new AUMF.

I think Flake-Kaine is a great start, but I am under no illusion that the process of putting a bill together that can garner widespread, bipartisan support will be an easy one. But the longer we wait, the higher the risk becomes that we will render ourselves irrelevant when it comes to authorizing force. That is a risk the Senate and Congress should not take.

I yield back.

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

Mr. President, we currently have the highest Federal corporate tax rate in the developed world. Businesses are moving from here overseas to seek a friendlier tax environment.

If we are going to compete globally--and we are in a global economy-- we have to have a conducive tax and regulatory environment to do so. We don't have a conducive tax environment now. We cannot compete globally with the second highest or the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

We also have a tax code that is far too complicated. Taxpayers and companies alike spend about 9 billion hours a year--9 billion hours a year--combined with IRS requirements, and this costs the U.S. economy more than $400 billion a year. This is just compliance costs.

The Tax Code is also full of costly loopholes which allow businesses and millions of individuals to get away with paying no income tax or no corporate tax.

After over 30 years, I am pleased to see Congress finally getting down to the work of doing a tax overhaul. A few weeks ago, we passed a budget that allows some cuts--about $1.5 trillion. I believe that when we do cut certain taxes, it does generate a greater economic activity, which does in turn mean additional revenue to government. However, there are limits to that model. We cannot simply assume we can cut all taxes and realize additional revenue. It is important that tax reform comes as well.

We have been hearing a lot about cuts, cuts, cuts. If we are going to do cuts, cuts, cuts, we have to do a wholesale reform. With the national debt exceeding $20 trillion, we have to take this seriously. Rate reductions have to be accompanied by repeal or reform. We cannot simply rely on rosy economic assumptions, rosy growth rates to fill in the gap. We have to make tough decisions. We cannot have cuts today that assume we will grow a backbone in the out-years in terms of the real reforms we are going to need. We have seen this before. We make the cuts now; we rely on rosy economic assumptions; and then, in the out-years, if those don't come about, we forget what we were supposed to do in terms of reform. We can't do that today, not with a debt of $20 trillion, not with a deficit of over $600 billion a year adding to that total debt.

I welcome this opportunity to do tax reform. It is needed. As I mentioned, we have to have a conducive tax and regulatory environment in order to compete, but we have to be realistic as well about what we can achieve, and we can't push off the reforms for cuts today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter of religious liberty. In particular, I urge this body to respect our constitutional values and avoid any hint of applying religious tests to those who heed the call of government service.

Freedom of religion is as foundational a principle as we have in this country. Yet some in this Chamber want to take a cabined view of it. If you are a judicial nominee, it is fine to attend the occasional worship service, but don't let on that you take it too seriously. That seems to be unacceptable.

From the inception of our Republic, religious believers have chosen to serve the country in countless ways. Whether through the Armed Forces, holding elected office, or sitting on the courts, Americans of faith always answered the call. We should welcome this service, and we should not sit idly by while others question the propriety of their service by suggesting a de facto religious test.

The Framers of the Constitution were fearful of this very thinking. They understood the importance of religious participation and foresaw the benefits religious believers of all backgrounds would contribute to the common good. They also knew, from centuries of war and suffering in Europe, the high cost of religious intolerance.

That is why they made it clear in article VI of the Constitution that no public officers could be subject to a religious test. This edict was entirely unambiguous in its language and its intent. This country is to be served by

people of all faiths, committed to the Constitution and the common good. It is up to us to question the qualifications and jurisprudence of nominees, not their religious views.

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening to Professor Barrett. I was at the confirmation hearing, where she faced inappropriate questions and objections based on her religious views. I witnessed a citizen heeding the call to serve her country, only to face inquiries into her religious beliefs that bordered on ridicule. My friends on the other side of the aisle defended their questions and their conduct, and I don't doubt their sincerity, but there is little comfort in the defense that it doesn't matter that Professor Barrett is a Catholic, but somehow it matters what sort of Catholic she is. These are unconstitutional distinctions without differences.

In addition, otherwise respectable news outlets have provided sensational reports of Professor Barrett's personal charismatic religious practices. As a Member of the Senate, I find this troubling, as a person of faith, I find this objectionable, and above all, as an American, I find this abhorrent.

It is religious liberty--enshrined in constitutional provisions like article VI and the First Amendment--that has allowed my faith and so many others to flourish in the United States. It is also religious liberty that is threatened when we seek to evaluate the fitness of nominees for high office based on religious orthodoxy.

I have endeavored to be consistent on this issue during my time in public service. When the Presidential nominee of my party--the party of Lincoln--called for a Muslim ban, it was wrong, and I said so. That is not what we stand for. When a judge expressed his personal belief that a practicing Muslim shouldn't be a Member of Congress because of his religious faith, it was wrong; that this same judge is now my party's nominee for the Senate from Alabama should concern us all. Religious tests have no place in Congress.

Standing up for people of faith--whether Muslim or Catholic--who are facing unfair prejudice should be an act of basic conscience. It should be expected of all of us, regardless of party. It is no better for Democrats to evaluate the judicial nominee based on how many books are in the Bible on which she swears her oath, than it is for Republicans to judge a Congressman who swears his oath on the Koran.

To suggest that somehow a Roman Catholic judge would discard the Constitution in favor of Church doctrine--which she has emphatically and repeatedly said she would not--is as wrong as suggesting that a Muslim judge would be somehow forced to follow sharia law over the Constitution.

Religious liberty must not depend on the religion in question. So I ask, in light of these circumstances, who will stand today against all cases of religious bigotry? Are there true liberals who will stand up for the liberal values of religious tolerance? Some have, like Professors Larry Tribe, Noah Feldman, and Chris Eisgruber. They have said: Enough. Who here will join them?

This very body is made up of individuals from around 15 different faiths. Each of us has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Each of us here feels we can competently carry out our duties, as do those in the judicial branch who swear a similar oath to uphold the Constitution.

Let us stand together today without equivocation and say no to religious intolerance in all its forms by examining the jurisprudential views and professional qualifications of judicial nominees, not their relationship with the Almighty.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been very much on my mind. At a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than by our own values and principles, let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office, and there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles. Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret--regret because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by ``our,'' I mean all of our complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs.

It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end. In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order, that phrase being the ``new normal.'' But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set at the top. We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country, the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people whom we have been elected to serve. None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that it is just politics as usual, then Heaven help us.

Without fear of the consequences and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as ``telling it like it is'' when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.

When such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength, because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness.

It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us ``Why didn't you do something? Why didn't you speak up?'' what are we going to say? Mr. President, I rise today to say ``enough.''

We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes the normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.

Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill the obligations under the Constitution by adhering to our article I ``old normal''--Mr. Madison's doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation, which affirms Madison's status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51, held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. ``Ambition counteracts ambition,'' he wrote. But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability or if decency fails to call out indecency?

Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course we wouldn't, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that silence and inaction are the wrong things to do because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseam, when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of our institutions and our liberty, we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

I am aware that more politically savvy people than I will caution against such talk. I am aware that there is a segment of my party that believes anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a President who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect. If I have been critical, it is not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the President of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe it is my obligation to do so as a matter of duty of conscience.

The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters, the notion that we should say or do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican President named Roosevelt had this to say about the President and a citizen's relationship to the office:

The President is merely the most important among a large

number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed

exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct

or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering

loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a

whole.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be

full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means

that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does

wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude

in an American citizen is both base and servile.

President Roosevelt continued:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the

President, or that we are to stand by a President, right or

wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally

treasonable to the American public.

Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and, as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party.

We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in this regard. I am holier than none.

But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.

In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice any principle. I am afraid this is where we now find ourselves.

When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country, and instead of addressing it goes to look for someone to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops, humility helps, and character counts.

Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly or debased appetites in us. Leadership lives by the American creed, ``E Pluribus Unum''--``From many, one.'' American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have been at our most principled, and when we do well, the rest of the world does well.

These articles of civic faith have been critical to the American identity for as long as we have been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation.

We must guard them jealously and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership, and to behave as if they don't matter is simply not who we are.

Now the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II, we contributed about half of the world's economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping those countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn't do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary, rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it. The implications of this abandonment are profound, and the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values.

Despotism loves a vacuum, and our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. What do we, as U.S. Senators, have to say about it? The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.

I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so I will not be complicit or silent. I have decided I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself of the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019. It is clear, at this moment, that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro- immigration has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican Party--the party that has so long defined itself by its belief in those things.

It is also clear to me, for the moment, that we have given up on the core principles in favor of a more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified, but anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal, but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican Party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging in or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorifying in the things that divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake, and we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say, the sooner the better because to have a healthy government, we must also have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity, and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man and always look for the good. Until that day comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it because it does.

I plan to spend the remaining 14 months of my Senate term doing just that. The graveyard is full of indispensable men and women. None of us here is indispensable, nor were even the great figures of history who toiled at these very desks in this very Chamber to shape the country we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place--values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career does not mean much if we are complicit in undermining these values.

I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today. I will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healthy enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time and are no less in ours:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds

of our affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when

again touched, as surely as they will be, by the better

angels of our nature.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)