Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, November 1; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Larsen nomination under the previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Casey and Sanders.

Mr. President, for the past 8 years, we had a President who selected nominees for our Nation's judiciary based upon what became known as the ``empathy standard,'' an ideological litmus test designed to find judicial nominees who would favor certain groups or individuals over others. It is a great standard if you are the party in a case for whom the judge has empathy. It is not so great if you are the other person. Not only does this standard deny every litigant a fair shake, but it also disregards our Nation's bedrock legal tradition of dispensing equal justice under the law.

President Trump, on the other hand, selected nominees who would help ensure that the judiciary is true to its role in our democracy. Later today, the Senate will vote to confirm one of those nominees, Trevor McFadden, as a district court judge for the District of Columbia. His nomination was approved by the Judiciary Committee without a single vote in opposition. Democrats needlessly delayed his vote on the floor anyway.

We have seen many delay tactics from them already this year. We have pushed through every time. We are going to push through again today. We are going to confirm the impressive judicial nominee before us, and we are going to confirm more judicial nominees in the coming days as well.

Our effort to confirm qualified judicial nominees this year would not be possible without the tireless work and effective leadership of our Judiciary Committee chairman, Chuck Grassley. To build on the excellent work of his committee, I filed cloture last week on four well-qualified circuit court nominees. These nominees understand that their role as a judge is to put aside their personal preferences and instead decide cases based on what the law says. We will confirm all of them this week, no matter how long that takes.

The first of these four circuit court nominees that we will confirm this week is Professor Amy Barrett, who was nominated by the President to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A mother of seven, Professor Barrett began her

legal career by clerking for Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Circuit and then for Justice Antonin Scalia. These prestigious clerkships gave her the opportunity to work closely with two giants of the legal field. Today, she is a respected professor at the University of Notre Dame, where, by the way, she was honored as Distinguished Professor of the Year twice. Professor Barrett will bring a wealth of knowledge to the bench.

Professor Barrett happens to be a Catholic. Her faith is important to her. She has spoken freely about it and its impact on her life. But she also understands the role of a judge, which is not to let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided.

Unbelievably, some on the political left, including some of our Democratic colleagues, are criticizing her because as a law student she cowrote a law journal article that argued just that. Her coauthor of the article, John Garvey, is now the president of Catholic University. He recently wrote the following:

Amy Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame, was grilled on

Wednesday by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee

about an article she and I wrote together in 1998 when I was

a law professor and she was my student. In that article we

argued that the death penalty was immoral, as the Catholic

Church teaches (in common with Quakers, Episcopalians,

Presbyterians, Methodists, and the 38 member communions in

the National Council of Churches). We went on to say that a

Catholic judge who held that view might, in rare cases, have

to recuse herself under . . . [the] federal statute that asks

a federal judge to step aside when she has conscientious

scruples that prevent her from deciding a case in conformity

with the facts and the law.

President Garvey went on to write:

Perhaps the Alliance for Justice, which has mounted a

campaign to discredit Professor Barrett, didn't get that far

in reading the article. Its website says this: ``Stunningly,

Barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or

the Constitution when it conflicts with their personal

religious beliefs. In fact, [this group claimed] Barrett has

said that judges should be free to put their personal views

ahead of their judicial oath to faithfully follow the law.''

President Garvey noted, however:

Barrett (and I) said no such thing--

No such thing--

We said precisely the opposite.

This opposition to Professor Barrett is so upside down that it leaves people like President Garvey wondering whether there is something else going on here. President Garvey concluded:

The case against Prof. Barrett is so flimsy that you have

to wonder whether there isn't some other, unspoken, cause for

their objection.

The president of Notre Dame also weighed in about these criticisms of Professor Barrett. Here is some of what he said in his letter to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee:

Your concern, as you expressed it, is that ``dogma lives

loudly in [Professor Barrett], and that is a concern when you

come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought

for years in this country.''

I am one in whose heart ``dogma lives loudly,'' as it has

for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom

have given their lives in service to this nation. . . . It is

chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might

now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask

you and your colleagues to respect those in whom ``dogma

lives loudly''--which is a condition we call faith.

A condition we call faith.

For the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the

law should command respect, not evoke concern.

Professor Barrett has made it clear that she would ``follow

unflinchingly'' all legal precedent and, in rare cases in

which her conscience would not allow her to do so, she would

recuse herself.

I will say that again:

. . . in rare cases in which her conscience would not allow

her to do so, she would recuse herself.

I can assure you that she is a person of integrity who acts

in accord with the principles she articulates.

Let me remind colleagues that article VI of the Constitution provides that ``no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office.'' That is the U.S. Constitution. According to the Founders, this was done to ensure that ``the people may employ any wise or good citizen in the execution of the various duties of the government.''

Professor Barrett of Notre Dame is just such a wise and good person, and when the Senate confirms her to the Seventh Circuit, our judiciary and our Nation will be better off.

I strongly support her nomination and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Sue Minton, of London, KY, who passed away on September 27, 2017, at the age of 67. Her passing is a deep loss to the community and to the local newspaper, The Sentinel-Echo, where she worked for 41 years.

For those who knew her as a colleague and a friend, Sue will be remembered for her dedication and her friendship. She was also a beloved member of the Laurel County community, where she lived with her husband, Dennis, and their daughter Denise.

Sue was always willing to help others, and she especially enjoyed spending time with her grandchildren. Sue will be deeply missed by friends, family, and the community. Elaine and I send our condolences to them in their time of grief

The Sentinel-Echo recently published an article on Sue's life and career. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have 2 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 Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, October 30, 2017, at 5 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

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 Monday, October 30, 2017, at 5:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of: Emily Webster Murphy, of Missouri, to be Administrator of the General Services Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 243, S. Res. 211.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 75.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 312, S. Res. 313, and S. Res. 314.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, October 31; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Barrett nomination postcloture; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that all time during morning business, recess, adjournment, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Barrett nomination.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Reed.

Mr. President, the Senate is continuing to move forward on President Trump's outstanding judicial nominations. Many of the well-qualified men and women the President has nominated enjoy substantial bipartisan support.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have decided to continue wasting the Senate's time with the pointless obstruction of these nominees. Time and again, they have erected partisan procedural hurdles that are designed not to change the outcome--they don't change the outcome--but simply to waste the Senate's time. Often, Democrats do not even oppose the nominee in question.

Let's compare the number of times this days-long delay has been invoked for nominees of the last two Presidents during the first years of their Presidencies--during the first year of the Obama Presidency and the first year of the Trump Presidency. Republicans required cloture on one of President Obama's judicial nominees during his first year--cloture one time on a judicial nominee for President Obama in his first year. Democrats have invoked this delay for every single one of President Trump's judicial nominees, so far, except one. This week, they are at it again.

Today, we will have a cloture vote on the nomination of Trevor McFadden to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Not a single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee registered an objection to the nomination; yet we still have to waste time in overcoming a procedural hurdle from our Democratic colleagues before the Senate can take up the nomination and consider it. It came out of committee with no opposition.

We are not going to let these mindless attempts to slow progress stop us from confirming the President's nominees to the judiciary. If that means more cloture votes and more time focused on this task, that is what we will do, but we will confirm these nominees. You can count on it.

Mr. President, on another matter, for families in Kentucky and across the Nation, the devastation of opioid abuse can be a constant and painful reality. Communities are forced to endure grief, worry, and loss. A recent report showed that my home State suffered more than 1,400 fatalities as a result of drug overdoses last year alone.

Despite the troubling statistics, however, there are glimmers of hope. The Republican-led Senate has worked hard to pass important legislation like Jessie's Law, the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. These measures are important steps that should lead to real progress. There are many other important efforts across the country as well. From coast to coast, we hear stories of men and women in recovery who are managing their addictions. We are heartened by these testimonies that

proper treatment offers real hope. They help remind everyone as to why we must continue to press forward. The task that remains is staggering, but we are committed.

Later today, President Trump will help our country take another step forward. We expect that he will formally recognize the opioid epidemic for the public health emergency that it is. This announcement builds upon years of progress that Congress has made in responding to addiction with comprehensive action, including prevention, enforcement, and treatment.

I commend the President for his continued commitment to this cause. When he visited us in the Senate earlier this week, he discussed the national epidemic and his administration's efforts to fight back. Along with my colleagues, I stand ready to work with him on future proposals to provide the necessary tools to protect our communities from this scourge.

A single bill or program is never going to solve this crisis on its own. Only a sustained, committed effort can do that. I am proud of our efforts to combat opioid addiction already. I also know that we will continue to push forward with continued collaboration with many groups both in Washington and in States and communities all across our country so that, one day, we can finally say that our country has beaten this crisis once and for all.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, that at 5:30 p.m., Monday, October 30, all postcloture time on the McFadden nomination be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate; 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; further, that it be in order to proceed to the following nominations during today's session of the Senate: Calendar Nos. 368, 369, 432, and 433.