Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Steven Engel to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. On many occasions, President Donald Trump has made clear that he does not appropriately respect the rule of law in America. We have seen this many times over the last few years, from his bigoted and disdainful comments about Federal judges, to his firing of FBI Director Comey because of what the President called ``this Russia thing,'' to his shameful pardon of Joe Arpaio, a man convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to stop violating the Constitution, to his efforts last week to badger the FBI and Federal prosecutors into doing his bidding. As Republican Senator Bob Corker said last Friday: President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people's confidence in our institutions. If my Republican colleagues want to restore confidence in our institutions of justice, they can start by making sure that only someone truly independent of Donald Trump serves in the vital position of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. The Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC, is not well known, but it is a critical part of the Federal government. OLC exercises statutory authority to provide legal advice that is binding on the executive branch. In addition to giving legal advice to the President and executive branch officials, OLC reviews all proposed Executive orders and Attorney General orders for form and legality. Essentially, OLC serves as a check to make sure that the President and his administration are faithfully executing the laws. There have been shameful moments in our history when OLC's leaders have lacked the independence and judgment to stand up for the rule of law. For example, in 2002, under Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, OLC produced the infamous torture memo that approved the CIA's use of torture techniques like waterboarding. When this memo became public in 2004, the Justice Department was forced to withdraw it. Jack Goldsmith, a prominent conservative legal scholar who was acting head of OLC at the time said he was ``astonished'' by the memo's ``deeply flawed'' and ``sloppily reasoned'' legal analysis. Then, in May 2005, OLC had a new leader--Steven Bradbury--and he secretly issued three new torture memos approving the use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques. Then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey strongly objected, saying the United States would be ashamed when the memos came to light, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales overruled him. Already, we have seen troubling signs at OLC under President Trump. In January, OLC signed off on President Trump's travel ban Executive order, a decision that was kept secret from then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates. According to Ms. Yates, this was the first time ever that OLC hid its actions from the Attorney General, which it did even though OLC reports to the Attorney General. This Executive order was blocked by multiple Federal courts before it was withdrawn. OLC issued an opinion on Inauguration Day to allow President Trump to employ family members in the White House. This was a reversal of OLC's longstanding position on antinepotism laws. OLC is likely to face many critical legal issues in the coming months and years. We need OLC to serve as an independent check on this administration, especially since President Trump has shown an eagerness to denigrate the justice system and to criticize those whose views on the law differ from his own. Unfortunately, Steven Engel, the President's nominee to head OLC, has not demonstrated the independence and judgment that our country needs for this vital position. Mr. Engel has been a law firm partner since 2009. Previously, he worked at OLC under President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009, rising to the level of Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Engel admitted that, while he was at OLC, he ``reviewed and commented upon'' a July 2007 memo to the CIA Acting General Counsel which concluded that six CIA enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. These techniques included, for example, extended sleep deprivation by shackling detainees in a standing position while wearing a diaper for days at a time. The OLC opinion said that these techniques did not constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that this 2007 memo was inconsistent with the plain meaning and commonly held understandings of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The OLC opinion was withdrawn in 2009. While at OLC, Mr. Engel also helped draft legislation that would become the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This law included a provision that suspended habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a provision that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in the Boumediene case. Additionally, Mr. Engel worked on President Trump's transition and Justice Department landing team, but, he would not tell the Judiciary Committee what matters he worked on, which is troubling. I asked Mr. Engel to provide reassurance that, if he is confirmed, OLC will operate independently from President Trump. His response? He said he was deeply committed to the independence of OLC and said, ``I demonstrated that commitment in my prior service in the Office, as well as in my activities in private practice and my volunteer work for the Trump transition team.'' It is hard for me to understand how Mr. Engel's work for the Trump transition--work that he would not even discuss with the committee--is supposed to reassure us about his independence from President Trump. To the contrary, I fear that by refusing to discuss his transition work, Mr. Engel has already started covering for Mr. Trump. Perhaps the most telling response Mr. Engel provided when it comes to demonstrating independence from President Trump is this. I asked him this question in writing: According to news reports, in a January 27th dinner, President Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey if Comey would pledge his loyalty to President Trump. Do you believe it is appropriate for a President to ask a Director of the FBI to pledge loyalty to the President? His response? ``I do not have any knowledge concerning the communications between President Trump and former FBI Director Comey.'' This is not a hard question. I wasn't asking Mr. Engel about the specific conversation between President Trump and the FBI Director. Here is the easy answer that he should have given: It is wrong and unethical for a President to ask an FBI Director--or any Justice Department or FBI official--to make a personal loyalty pledge. If Mr. Engel can't get the easy questions right, what will he say when challenging questions come before OLC? For example, what if President Trump asks OLC to revise the 1974 OLC memo concluding that a President cannot pardon himself? Would Mr. Engel cave to the President's whims? Or what if President Trump asks OLC to justify some pretext for the firing of Special Counsel Mueller? Are my Republican colleagues confident that Mr. Engel would stand strong? Here is the bottom line. Many of my Republican colleagues talk and tweet about their concerns when President Trump disrespects the rule of law, but talk and tweets are cheap. If they are truly concerned about President Trump's actions, they need to vote in a way that serves as a meaningful check on President Trump. Our Nation needs the Office of Legal Counsel to serve as a check on the President's worst impulses. We need them to stand strong when the President berates the Justice Department and urges it to ignore legal norms and processes. I am concerned that Mr. Engel has not demonstrated the independence and judgment we need from the head of this critical office. Therefore, I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday there was another gun massacre and horrible circumstances. I know the Presiding Officer came to the floor earlier today to say a word about his feelings and the feelings of his family. They are shared by all of us. It is heartbreaking to think that some person so demented, so unusual would come into a worship setting and kill innocent people. Yesterday, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, at least 26 people were killed and 20 others were wounded when a gunman opened fire in the sanctuary of the First Baptist Church. The reported shooter, Devin Kelley, used an assault rifle to commit this mass murder. The victims range in age from 18 months to 77 years. About a dozen of those who were killed were children, including the daughter of the church's pastor. This is heartbreaking. Our nation grieves for the victims and their loved ones. The shooter reportedly drove up to the church wearing a bulletproof vest and tactical gear, and he began firing in the parking lot before entering the church. At some point, a local resident who lived near the church began firing back. The shooter then drove off, with two residents in pursuit, eventually crashing his car. He was found dead from a gunshot wound, which may have been self-inflicted. President Trump and others have said that this exchange of fire with citizens responding saved lives and shows that the policy response to the shooting should be to arm more good guys with guns. Let us not forget that 46 people were shot before these citizens came on the scene. This reported shooter, 26 years old, had served in the U.S. Air Force from 2010 until 2014, working on logistics readiness. In 2012 he was court-martialed for two counts of assault on his then-wife and child. He was sentenced to confinement for 12 months. He received a bad conduct discharge in 2014. He remarried in 2014, and had worked as an unarmed security guard at a water park. He reportedly bought four guns, one each year from 2014 to 2017, and three of those weapons--the assault rifle that he used in this crime and two handguns--were found at the scene. Local law enforcement said that the shooter was likely motivated by a domestic situation. His wife's grandmother was one of the victims. There are so many things that come to mind. First and foremost is the grief and sorrow we all feel for the families who were affected. It is so sad that when people go to church on Sunday, they are not safe from gun violence and gun massacres, which are occurring way too frequently across the United States. Just over two years ago, nine people were killed by a gunman in the Charleston Emanuel AME Church. And just last month we saw the worst mass shooting in modern American history in Las Vegas, with 58 people murdered and over 500 wounded. In Chicago, at least 29 people were shot, five fatally, over this past weekend. There are things that we need to do, and that only we can do in Congress, to make the laws better and safer. I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the fact that there are men and women in my family, friends, and people I represent across Illinois who own guns and use them safely and responsibly. We have sportsmen and hunters in my family. We have people who buy guns for sporting purposes and for self-defense. They store the guns carefully and safely. They take very seriously that they are dealing with a deadly weapon. They don't want anyone innocent to be hurt. I respect that very much. I think we all should. But I also call on them now. They need to lead us into a more sensible policy when it comes to gun safety. Owners of firearms, overwhelmingly, when asked, believe we should have comprehensive background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who misuse them. Overwhelmingly, a majority of gun owners feel that way, as most Americans feel. Why can't we do that? We certainly know it is within our power. In my State of Illinois, in the city of Chicago, we are approaching 600 homicides this year--600--most of them from gunfire. It is heartbreaking. That doesn't include those who were injured by being shot as well. Where are these guns coming from? There are no gun stores in the city of Chicago. That is true. But when it comes to purchasing guns, it makes no difference. The suburbs have plenty of gun dealers. Of course, there are gun shows in neighboring States, like Indiana. We also know gun stores in the suburbs of Chicago supply 25 percent of the identified crime guns. We know many of those are sold in what is known as a straw purchase. They are sold to someone who buys a gun for someone who is not legally qualified. It is a girlfriend or someone who buys a gun because she has no criminal record so her boyfriend can use it--misuse it--and kill innocent people. Can't we toughen that law and make sure there are real penalties for straw purchases? That is not going to slow down any legitimate gun owner or anyone who wants to use a gun in a responsible fashion. That is one thing we can do. Then there is the gun show loophole. We know, with Columbine and other places, that it was a gun show loophole that opened the way for the purchase of guns that killed innocent people. Let's do something about that. We should. If we are serious, we should. We also know that the 1996 Lautenberg amendment prohibits convicted domestic abusers from buying or using guns. That applies, as well, to military personnel. Questions need to be asked and answered about this shooter in Texas and what happened after he was court-martialed for domestic abuse in the Air Force in 2012. How did he purchase a gun after that, in violation of the Lautenberg amendment? We need to also ask why in the world anyone needs to own an assault weapon. I understand people buy rifles and shotguns and even handguns for sporting and self-defense. But why does anyone need to own a military-style weapon--one that can be converted, as we found in Las Vegas, to a weapon that discharges 100 rounds in 7 seconds? That is totally unnecessary for any legitimate legal purpose. It is available, perhaps, for military use, perhaps, for law enforcement but not for the ordinary American citizen who would purchase and own a gun for legitimate purposes. Next, we need to make sure that we understand why gun violence is growing in America. The number of people who have been killed or injured just grows by the year. It is getting worse. According to a CDC report issued just last week, gun deaths increased for the second year in a row last year. There were more than 38,000 gun deaths in 2016, up from 36,000 in 2015 and from 33,500 the year before that. We are experiencing a public health crisis of gun violence in America, according to the American Medical Association. Of course, there is no single law or policy that would prevent every shooting death, just as there is no single law or policy that would prevent every drug overdose death. But we have to start working together, on a bipartisan basis, to bring these shooting numbers down. We need to also talk about the issue of mental health, raised by the President in response to this tragedy in Texas. The President said: This isn't a guns situation. . . . I think that mental health is your problem here. Despite the fact that most violence in the United States has nothing to do with mental illness, many are arguing that mental health is really the issue. What have we done in the Senate when it comes to mental health and guns this year? Senate Republicans used the CRA to repeal a regulation that directed the Social Security Administration to share mental illness information with the background check compilation of information. There was advocacy for massive cuts to Medicaid, which would throw millions of people with mental health needs off coverage. There was an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have allowed insurers to refuse coverage of essential health benefits, including mental health treatment. And there was a refusal to provide additional Federal funding to help provide mental health care. We don't have a very good record this year in the Senate when it comes to taking mental illness seriously, and we should. I will also introduce a bill that I am working on to encourage more crime-gun tracing in light of last week's crime-gun trace report from the Chicago Police Department. We focus on terrorism and what it does to our country, and we should. That is our responsibility. Anyone who would do harm to innocent Americans--as in 9/11, killing 3,000 in that particular instance--needs to be taken extremely seriously by all of us in Congress and in the White House. Foreign sources of terrorism need to be carefully watched when it comes to our border security, when it comes to background checks, and the like. But let's be honest. More Americans are dying from Americans killing Americans with guns than by terrorist activity. It is just as much a death as any foreign terrorist threat would be, and we need to consider it just as seriously as we do when it comes to the issues of terrorism and safety for the people of America. Why doesn't the Congress take this up? Why don't we even have a debate? I am on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have not had a single bill this year that addresses gun safety--not one--despite the gun violence that takes place every day and despite tragedies like this tragedy over the weekend in Sutherland Springs, TX. Every time a terrible shooting occurs, Republican leaders in Congress say now is not the time to act. And then Congress never acts. Congress still has not acted to close the 72-hour background check loophole that allowed the Charleston church shooter to buy his gun in 2015. Congress has done nothing to address the bump stocks that enabled the Las Vegas shooter to turn a concert into a war zone. Congress still hasn't even addressed the gun show loophole that allowed the Columbine shooters to commit that massacre back in 1999. Will Congress act in response to this latest tragedy? Will the Republicans who control Congress finally stand up to the gun lobby and put legislation on the floor to bring down the number of gun deaths? Or will the Republican-controlled Congress ignore this public health crisis once again? The Republicans in Congress are rushing to pass massive changes to our tax code in a matter of weeks, and yet they refuse to do anything to prevent the next mass shooting. If the Republicans treated this gun violence epidemic with a fraction of the urgency they are showing when it comes to cutting taxes for the wealthiest one percent and the largest corporations, we could save many lives. I pray for the victims of gun violence in this nation, but I also pray that my colleagues will act to reduce this gun violence epidemic.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first say at the outset that many of us have extended well wishes to our colleague, Senator Paul, who was injured over the weekend. We wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he returns soon. He is an important part of the Senate and an important colleague to those of us on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on September 5, 2 months ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Trump administration's repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, better known as DACA. DACA provides temporary legal status to immigrant students if they register with the government, pay a fee, and pass criminal and national security background checks. It was renewable on a 2-year basis. The young people protected by DACA are also known as Dreamers. They came to the United States as children. They grew up knowing only this country, believing this was their home and their future. Many of them in their teenaged years were told quietly by a parent that their legal status was not the status of an American citizen. These kids, who grew up singing the Star Spangled Banner and pledging allegiance to the American flag, have no country. It was 7 years ago that I sent a letter to President Obama, joined by Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. On a bipartisan basis, we asked President Obama to establish a program like the DACA Program. The President responded, and DACA has been a success. Almost 800,000 Dreamers have come forward. They have surrendered to their government the information that many of their families kept secret for years. They trusted us. They gave this information to the government and said: We want to become part of America's future, and we are willing to sign up, submit ourselves to the background check, pay our taxes, pay our filing fee, and do whatever is necessary. They trusted us. These young people who came forward and received DACA have then gone on to contribute more fully to their country. They are teachers, nurses, engineers, first responders, and servicemembers in our military. Now, because of President Trump's announcement, the deportation clock is ticking on these young people. Beginning on March 5, 2018, not that long from now, every workday for the following 2 years approximately 1,400 Dreamers will lose their work permits and be subject to deportation. These young people who trusted our government will now, with the decision to end DACA, find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. When they lose their DACA protection, if they are teachers, they are forced to leave their students. If they are nurses, they are forced to leave their patients. If they are first responders, they leave their post. If they are soldiers willing to die for our country, they are forced to leave our military service. This isn't just a looming humanitarian crisis. It is also an economic crisis. The nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that DACA-eligible individuals contribute an estimated $2 billion a year in State and local taxes. The Cato Institute, a conservative operation, estimates that ending DACA and deporting DACA recipients will cost $60 billion and result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next 10 years. Poll after poll shows overwhelming bipartisan support for these Dreamers. Even FOX News--no liberal media outlet--recently found that 79 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers, including 63 percent of those who voted for President Trump. Sixty- three percent, or almost two out of three Trump supporters, supports a legal status for Dreamers. The answer is clear. Congress needs to pass the Dream Act, and we need to do it before we leave Washington, DC, for the holidays. It was 16 years ago that I first introduced this bipartisan legislation to give a path of citizenship to these young people. In July I introduced the most recent version with my friend, Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator from South Carolina. Over the years I have come to the floor almost 100 times to tell individual stories of the Dreamers. These stories tell us what is at stake when we consider the fate of DACA and the Dream Act. Today, I want to tell you about Ha Eun Lee. When she was 6 years old, her family came to the United States from Korea. She grew up in Bloomfield Hills, MI. Here is what Ha Eun says about her childhood in the United States: ``I was fortunate enough to grow up learning that diversity is encouraged and differences are not just tolerated but welcomed.'' Ha Eun was a good student and committed to public service. In high school she was a member of the National Honor Society, received the Principal's Academic Achievement Award, and was an Oakland Activities Association Scholar Athlete. She was a member of the track and field team during all 4 years of high school. Ha Eun is now a senior at the University of Michigan, majoring in English. She volunteers with the Red Cross, and she is copresident of an organization called The Supply, which raises money to help students in Nairobi, Kenya, obtain an education. As copresident, Ha Eun has expanded this organization's efforts, and they are now volunteering locally near Detroit. Ha Eun was also a policy and programs intern for the Asian Americans Advancing Justice Center. As Ha Eun completes her last year of college, her dream is to become a lawyer. She wrote me a letter, and here is what she said: Although I'm legally labeled as an ``alien'' in this country I call home, I believe I am an American. And I believe this not solely because I live, study, work and contribute to this country, but because I believe in the core values all Americans share as a nation: liberty, justice, and prosperity. Ha Eun and other Dreamers have so much to contribute to our country, but without DACA or the Dream Act, they will be deported back to countries where they haven't lived since they were children. Will America be stronger if we deport people like Ha Eun? I think the answer is obvious. When we introduced the Dream Act, Senator Graham said: ``The moment of reckoning is coming.'' That moment has arrived. Congress has a responsibility to do our job and make the Dream Act the law of the land before the end of the year, before we go home for the holidays; otherwise, we will bear the responsibility for forcing hundreds of thousands of talented young immigrants out of the workforce and putting them at risk of immediate deportation. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are interested in finding a path to get this done. I salute all of them who in good faith have offered their help. We have to focus now. We have to come together and focus. Many of my Republican colleagues have said that we need to put in border security elements. Count me in. Let's sit down and have an honest discussion about making our borders safer and stronger. I will gladly join that conversation. I think there are many things we can agree on that will lessen the likelihood that there will be those coming across the border in the years to come. I recently met with the head of border security, and we talked about things that might be done. There is something called a Z Portal. I didn't know about it. It is a virtual x ray machine, a low-level radiation x ray machine that can x ray vehicles and determine whether they are secreting individuals or contraband that shouldn't be allowed in this country. He talked about one particular border crossing and said: We have a Z Portal there, but it can be used on only about one out of every five vehicles. He said: I would like to have more of them. I think he should. Why wouldn't we make that part of border security? I said: What about other things coming into this country, other than people? He said: One thing we are concerned about is fentanyl. Fentanyl is a chemical that is used to enhance the addiction of heroin, and, sadly, it is deadly. Many heroin addicts die when they lace the heroin with fentanyl and inject it, so we try at the borders to stop the importation of this fentanyl from China and other countries into the United States. I asked him about it. He said: Sadly, we don't have enough new spectrometers, which are used to test these chemicals. We need them to stop the flow of this deadly drug into our country and to protect the men and women who are doing the actual surveillance. Isn't that something we can agree on, on a bipartisan basis, to make our borders safer, to lessen the likelihood of people dying from the opioid heroin crisis? These are things we can do together. Somehow we haven't been able to come up with a list of particulars from the other side of what they would like to move forward on, but I am ready, willing, and determined to get this done. We have to do this this year. There is no excuse. There are too many lives at stake, not just the 780,000 DACA individuals but all of the people whom they are helping in their lives today. They are depending on us. We are running out of time. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this constructive and bipartisan effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I annouce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Dr. Glenn Poshard has served the United States in many ways. He served in the military and taught in high school. He represented rural southern Illinois in the Illinois State Senate from 1984 to 1988 and in Congress from 1989 to 1998. I served with him for 8 years in the House of Representatives. Glenn was a strong proponent of campaign finance reform so much so that he limited individual donations and refused contributions from political action committees when he ran for Governor in 1998. Following his tenure in Congress, Glenn and his wife, Jo, founded the Poshard Foundation for Abused Children. The foundation has helped the abused, abandoned, and neglected children of southern Illinois for 18 years. Glenn's service to the community also continued through his role as president of Southern Illinois University where he was the second longest serving president in the history of the Southern Illinois University system. Earlier this month, Glenn reminded us what service to our country and what the American flag means for us in an op-ed in the Southern Illinoisan, which I have included here. Dr. Poshard wrote: In 1962, I joined the U.S. Army on my 17th birthday. I had just graduated from high school and was following in the tradition of my family's military service. They had served in the Civil War and fought their way across Europe and the Pacific in two World Wars. Some were POWs and one, my first cousin and closest friend, Dennis, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery in Vietnam, was the first young man from our county to be killed in that war. During my three years of enlistment, I served a tour of duty with the First Cav Division in Korea. When my active duty was finished in December 1965, I immediately entered SIU Carbondale on the GI Bill. Protests against the Vietnam War were already gripping the campus. They were abhorrent to me, particularly when the American flag was used to symbolize anger toward the government. But I was busy, carrying a full load of classes, working three part-time jobs, and trying to support a new family. By the time Old Main burned and the campus closed in the spring of 1970, I was beyond anger for the thousands of protesters desecrating our flag and destroying my beloved university. I made no attempt to understand the difference between the symbolism of the flag and the substance of the Bill of Rights as it pertained to freedom to speak against perceived wrongs of our government. Years later, as a member of Congress, I was forced to grapple with this volatile issue again. In my first term, a bill was submitted to amend the Constitution prohibiting the desecration of the American flag as a means of protest against our government. Now, I had to understand this issue in its deepest, broadest context. My family and I went to Philadelphia where I sat in Independence Hall, contemplating those early debates of our forefathers on issues of equality, justice and freedom. Moved to tears, I was about to cast a vote of which the historical significance reached back to arguments which formed the founding documents of our country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We drove to Gettysburg and I stood where our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, delivered his address, taking us back to our Declaration of Independence, which stated, ``All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' When our forefathers thought they had been denied these rights long enough by the King of England, they fought a Revolutionary War to gain them. And they fought a Civil War to extend those rights to slaves. Over the next 100 years, they fought all over the world to secure these rights for other people. President Kennedy spoke of this in his inaugural address. He said, ``These same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe today. The belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God. We dare not forget that we are the heirs of that first Revolution.'' The Declaration goes on to say that when any form of government becomes destructive of these rights then it is the right of the people to protest and alter that form of government so that those rights are secured to the people. And in the 1960s and '70s, people protested against what they believed was an unjust war which imperiled their lives, their freedoms, and their pursuit of happiness. They believed that nearly 60,000 deaths were enough in a war our government either could not or would not win. When hundreds of thousands of mostly white young men in the '60s and thousands of mostly black young men today protest against their government, it is because they feel their God- given rights are threatened. But why involve the flag? In a Supreme Court decision, Board of Education v. Barnett in 1943, Justice Jackson wrote words especially relevant to this issue. He said, ``Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of freedom's substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order''--i.e. our flag. For many, it is not enough to write a letter to their congressman, attend a meeting or participate in a march. They must take the most important thing symbolizing our freedom-- the flag--and cast it at the feet of their government to show how emphatically they disagree with government allowing the infringement of their rights. Millions of people of color in our country today feel threatened. They just want to enjoy the same security and freedom we all enjoy and the flag has become central to their protest precisely because it matters, as it did in the '60s to an earlier generation. When I protested as a young man in my church that it was not necessary for God to send His only Son to be sacrificed for my freedom, that He could have provided another way, the pastor said, ``Oh yes it was, because He could not win your freedom from sin by sacrificing that which didn't matter much, He had to sacrifice the most important thing He loved, His Son.'' The Supreme Court has said that the use of the flag in dissent against the government does not diminish it or the contribution of the men and women who fought for our freedom, but instead stands as a powerful symbol to illustrate the substance of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. I listened carefully to the debate in 1990 on the flag desecration amendment which for the first time in 200 years would have amended our Bill of Rights. These words from President Reagan's solicitor general, Charles Fried, express my beliefs entirely. ``The flag, as all in this debate agree, symbolizes our nation, its history, its values. We love the flag because it symbolizes the United States; but we must love the Constitution even more, because the Constitution is not a symbol. It is the thing itself.'' Reading Glenn's op-ed, I was reminded of the late John Glenn, colleague, friend, and legend. He testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004 about the flag of the United States. This is a man who carried the flag into space as an astronaut. He served in the Marine Corps. When presented with a flag-burning amendment, he said, ``It would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental freedoms themselves.'' Free speech is the bedrock of our democracy. As millions of Americans are participating in the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution today, we should remember Glenn Porshard's point that they do so not to destroy our Republic, but to celebrate the strength of our Constitution. Thank you. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has come to the floor to complain about what he calls obstruction of President Trump's judicial nominees. The majority leader must feel that many of us suffer from amnesia. It was just last year Senate Republicans, under the leadership of the same Senator McConnell, set a new standard of obstruction. The most prominent victim of Republican obstruction, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, was President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. Never, never in the history of the U.S. Senate has the Senate denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. Senator McConnell led the Republicans last year in doing that. Then, Senator McConnell refused to even meet with Judge Garland, refused to give him the courtesy of a meeting, even though the judge's qualifications were unquestioned and even though he had been confirmed to the DC Circuit with broad bipartisan support. The way Senate Republicans treated Merrick Garland was disgraceful, but Judge Garland was far from the only victim of Republican systematic obstruction during the Obama Presidency. In 2016, there were 30 noncontroversial judicial nominees--17 women and 13 men--who were denied a floor vote by Senate Republicans. All but two of these nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote of Democrats and Republicans. Some of these nominees--like Edward Stanton of Tennessee and Julien Neals of New Jersey--sat on the Senate calendar for more than a year, waiting for a vote which the Republican majority leader and his Members refused to give them. During the last 2 years of President Obama's administration, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed only 22 judges in 2 years. That is the lowest number of confirmations in a Congress since 1952. By comparison, in the last 2 years of George W. Bush's Presidency, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 68 judicial nominees--22 under Republicans and Obama and 68 under Democrats for President Bush. That is not all. Republicans also obstructed 18 Obama nominees by denying them blue slips. That is the permission slip from a Senator from the State of the judicial nominee. That included five nominees who had been State supreme court justices who were not approved by Republican Senators to move to the Federal bench: Lisabeth Tabor Hughes from Kentucky, Myra Selby from Indiana, Don Beatty from South Carolina, Louis Butler from Wisconsin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson from North Carolina. Senate Republicans turned obstruction of judicial nominees into an art form under President Obama. Yet Senator McConnell, day after day, has said: ``I think President Obama has been treated very fairly by any objective standard.'' He comes to the floor now regularly to complain about ``obstruction'' of Trump nominees. Senator McConnell and the Senate Republicans set the standard for obstruction. If Leader McConnell thinks President Obama was treated fairly with these facts, it is hard to understand why he is complaining about the treatment of President Trump's judicial nominees. So far this year, the Senate has confirmed four of President Trump's circuit court nominees and four of his district court nominees. At the same point in his first year, President Obama had one circuit court nominee and three district court nominees confirmed. Twice the number have been confirmed under President Trump as were confirmed under President Obama in each of their first years. President Trump's nominees are moving twice as fast as President Obama's. Senator McConnell controls the floor schedule. If he wants to schedule more votes on judges, I suppose he has the power to do so. He is exercising that power by doing something that has never happened in the history of the Senate. Four circuit court judge nominees will be considered this week in the Senate. Since the Republicans in the Senate are dedicating this week to judicial nominations, it gives us a good opportunity to look at the nominees President Trump has put forward for lifetime appointments to the second highest courts in the Federal system. Time and again, we have seen President Trump nominate people who are far outside of the judicial mainstream. For example, there is John Bush, now a judge on the Sixth Circuit, who blogged about the false claim that President Obama wasn't born in the United States, compared abortion to slavery, and said in his hearing that he thinks impartiality is an aspiration for a judge, not an expectation. There is Damien Schiff, nominee for the Court of Federal Claims under President Trump, who called Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ``a judicial prostitute.'' There is Jeff Mateer, a Trump nominee for the district court in Texas, who described transgender children as part of ``Satan's plan'' and who lamented that States were banning so-called ``conversion therapy,'' the pseudoscience of attempting to ``convert'' LGBT Americans into heterosexuals. There is Thomas Farr, Trump nominee for the district court in North Carolina, whom the Congressional Black Caucus describes as ``the preeminent attorney for North Carolina Republicans seeking to curtail the voting rights of people of color.'' There is Greg Katsas, nominee for the DC Circuit, who refused to say at his hearing whether the torture technique known as waterboarding is illegal. There is Brett Talley, a nominee by President Trump to be Federal trial judge in Alabama, who has never tried a single case and he wrote in a blog: ``I pledge my support to the National Rifle Association, financially, politically, and intellectually.'' There is Alabama district court and Trump nominee Liles Burke, who hung a portrait of Confederate President Jefferson Davis in his office and defended it at his hearing, saying it had ``historical significance.'' There is Oklahoma district court nominee Charles Goodwin, who received a very rare rating of ``not qualified'' to be a Federal judge from the American Bar Association. The list of Trump nominees goes on. Routinely, we see judicial nominees under President Trump who have a history of taking ideologically driven positions that are out of the mainstream. Nearly all of these nominees are members of the rightwing Federalist Society, which President Trump uses as his gatekeeper for the Federal bench. Do you remember Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court Justice? Do you know how he was notified that he had been chosen to be a candidate for the Supreme Court? You would expect a call from the White House, right-- maybe even a call from the President? No. The White House decided to delegate to the Federalist Society to notify him. They called Mr. Leo, their director, and said: Why don't you call Mr. Gorsuch and give him the good news? Well, it is no surprise to those of us who know that the Federalist Society, this conservative group, is now the gatekeeper of all the Federal judges under President Trump. Many of these nominees have given no reassurance that they will be independent as judges. And the question obviously is, What impact will the President--who has unfortunately denigrated and pressured Federal judges in the past--have on them? Let's consider the nominees before the Senate this week. Professor Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to sit on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is a distinguished professor at Notre Dame Law School. She has strong academic credentials. She clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. But she has no judicial experience. And she told the Judiciary Committee that she could only recall three litigation matters that she worked on in her entire career--three. She has never served as a counsel of record in an appellate case or ever argued an appeal. Given her lack of judicial record and her minimal record as a practicing lawyer, the Judiciary Committee looked at Professor Barrett's academic writings to try to understand who she is and what she believes. Basically, that is all we had to go on. Much of Professor Barrett's writings deal with when she believes it is acceptable for judges to deviate from precedent. For example, in a 2003 law journal article, she called for ``federal courts to restore flexibility to stare decisis doctrine.'' In a 2013 article, she said that it is ``more legitimate for [a justice] to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.'' These are extraordinary--some would say even extreme--views of the obligation of a Federal judge to follow established precedent from someone who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. I would like to address Barrett's Law Review article. She co-wrote an article in 1998 with John Garvey in the Marquette Law Review entitled ``Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.'' This article was about what she perceived then as the recusal obligations of ``orthodox Catholic'' judges. The article said some provocative things. Here are some examples: ``A judge will often entertain an ideological bias that makes him lean one way or another. In fact, we might safely say that every judge has such an inclination.'' ``Litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense.'' She wrote, when discussing the ``behavior of orthodox Catholics in capital cases,'' that ``the judge's cooperation with evil passes acceptable limits when he conducts a sentencing hearing.'' This is an article written by the nominee. This is an issue raised by the nominee. It was such a profound statement about the relationship between conviction, conscience, and religious belief, that it was the subject of many questions from many Senators on the Judiciary Committee. For the last 2 days, Senator McConnell has come to the floor and talked about the left asking questions about Amy Coney Barrett's religious beliefs. Obviously Senator McConnell has not read the transcript from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Some have suggested it was inappropriate for the Judiciary Committee to even question the nominee about the impact of religious belief on the discharge of her duties. Some of my colleagues have questioned the propriety of such questions in light of the Constitution's clear, unequivocal prohibition on religious tests. But I would remind the Senate that it was the nominee herself, in this 47-page Law Review article, who raised this issue on whether the teachings of the Catholic Church should have any impact on the discharge of judicial duties of a Catholic judge. So was it any surprise that at least five different Senators--three Republicans and two Democrats--asked her about the article that she coauthored? It is no surprise that the gravity of this publication and the issue it raised led committee members on both sides of the aisle to ask questions about the nominee's religious beliefs, the contents of her writings, and how it would impact the discharge of her duties if she was approved by the Senate. Who asked the first question about the religious beliefs of Amy Coney Barrett? It was the Republican chairman of the Committee, Charles Grassley. He noted that Professor Barrett had been outspoken about her Catholic faith and asked her when it was proper for a judge to put religious views above applying the law. Chairman Grassley also asked, in his second question, how she would decide when she needs to recuse herself on grounds of conscience. Senator McConnell comes to the floor and suggests that any reference to that article somehow raises questions of religious bias. Let me say for the record that I do not believe Chairman Grassley is guilty of religious bias, nor have I ever seen any evidence of it. It was hard to imagine how he could avoid the obvious. She had written a lengthy article--coauthored an article on a subject, and he felt duty-bound, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to ask her questions about her beliefs on the subject. I don't believe that Chairman Grassley would ever apply a religious test to any nominee, but he and many of us felt it important to ask Professor Barrett to state her position clearly on the convergence of her faith, her conscience, and her duties as a Federal judge. Similarly, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch felt it necessary to ask Professor Barrett to make clear a judge's duty when the laws or Constitution conflicts with the judge's personal religious beliefs. Again, I do not believe Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, would apply a religious test to any nominee, but the nominee's writings and the questions those writings raised led him to ask the nominee that question. Later in the hearing, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, raised the same issue. I will quote what he said to Professor Barrett: I've read some of what you've written on Catholic judges and in capital cases, and in particular, as I understand it, you argued that Catholic judges are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. I was going to ask you to just please explain your views on that because that obviously is of relevance to the job for which you have been nominated. That was from Republican Senator Ted Cruz. I do not suggest that he was guilty of any religious bias in asking the question about an article written by the nominee. I take our Constitution seriously when it says there should be no religious test for public office, but many Senators on the Judiciary Committee--three Republicans and two Democrats, including myself--felt the writings of the nominee warranted an inquiry about her views on the impact of her religion on a judge's role. That is far from a religious test in violation of the Constitution. At her hearing, I asked Professor Barrett several questions about her 1998 Law Review article. I asked her whether she still agreed with her article. She said in general that she did. I said that even though I am a Catholic, even though I have gone through 19 years of Catholic education, I have never run into the term ``orthodox Catholic,'' which she used in that article. I asked her if she could define it. What was she saying? Whom did she describe? She said it was an imperfect term but explained the context for her use of it. I asked her whether she considered herself in that category, using her term which she put forward as carrying certain obligations on judicial recusal. She acknowledged again that the term is a proxy and that it wasn't a term in current use. Some have argued that I was imposing a religious test--somehow, the three Republican Senators asking the same question have not been challenged--or that I was insinuating that Catholics can't serve on the bench. That is absurd. I myself am Catholic. I deeply respect and value the freedom of religion in our country and the Constitution. And I will let my record speak for itself about the number of Catholic nominees whom I have appointed to the bench or tried to appoint to the bench with the concurrence of the Senate during the course of my career. I voted for many judicial nominees who are of the Catholic religion, including Judge Ralph Erickson, who is outspoken about his Catholic faith and whom I voted to confirm several weeks ago. I am also sure I voted against nominees who were Catholic as well because I didn't think they had the experience, judgment, or temperament to serve in the Federal judiciary. At nomination hearings, I ask questions to try to understand how the nominee would approach the job of a judge. I asked Professor Barrett questions about issues she raised in her academic writings that could directly impact the discharge of her judicial duties. I would note that Professor Barrett put forward her views as part of the academic legal debate. Contrast that with Paul Abrams, President Obama's nominee for the Central District of California, who was aggressively questioned by committee Republicans last year about statements he made while speaking at his synagogue. Republicans ultimately blocked Paul Abrams' nomination. No one on this side of the aisle--not this Senator or any Senator--questioned whether they were applying a religious test in rejecting his nomination. When judicial nominees have put forward their views on issues like the intersection of law and faith as part of the academic legal debate, I think it is fair for members of the Judiciary Committee to ask them about it. That is no religious test by my measure. I voted against Professor Barrett's nomination in committee because I don't believe she has sufficient experience to be a circuit court judge and because of her writings about precedent. No one doubts that she is smart, but she has barely spent any time in the courtroom. The only basis we have to judge her on is on her academic writings. Let's be honest. If a Democratic President had put forward a nominee with as little practical legal experience as Professor Barrett and with a similar history of advocating for not following precedent, I think we know exactly how the Senators on the other side of the aisle would have voted. As it stands, I cannot support Professor Barrett's nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend Senator Duckworth to recognize the 100th anniversary of Chicago's Navy Pier, one of the most visited attractions in Illinois and the Midwest. Navy Pier, originally named Municipal Pier, was the first of its kind. The pier was created to bring revenue into the city by supporting industry and tourism. The pier opened in 1916 and served as a port for commercial shipping and provided the entertainment and recreation needed to transform Chicago's lakefront into a popular tourist attraction. During World War I and World War II, the pier was used as a naval training center for over 60,000 Navy recruits and was later named Navy Pier to honor the Navy personnel who served and contributed to the national war effort. Throughout its history, Navy Pier was home to several Chicago institutions and traditions. Navy Pier was also the former home to the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1946 to 1965, nicknamed ``Harvard on the Rocks,'' and served more than 100,000 students. Navy Pier originally held the famous Taste of Chicago in 1978 and today continues to host a variety of festivals, conferences, trade shows, and live entertainment. Navy Pier opens its doors to locals and visitors to experience Chicago's rich historical and cultural history while enjoying activities and the city's lakefront. Its popular attractions, including the iconic ferris wheel, have attracted more than 9 million visitors a year, generated millions of dollars in revenue, and created thousands of jobs for the region. It is no surprise that Navy Pier has been labeled a Chicago historic landmark with its significant contributions to the city of Chicago and the Nation. Navy Pier continues to promote tourism and support economic growth in Chicago and the Midwest, while improving its facilities and core missions to better provide services to visitors. It is with great pride that I join Senator Duckworth in honoring Navy Pier and its many accomplishments.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have remarks that I wish to make, but I will yield at this time in order for the Republican leader to be recognized after which I will seek recognition.