Laxton in a video library. Going you live to the floor of the senate about to gavel in peer voting today and whether to confirm Trevor Mcfadden to be d. C. District judge and another debate on amy barrett to be the seventh Circuit Court. More work on judicial nominations are expected this week and also let you know in rush investigation, bail has been set for Paul Manafort and rick gates, former Trump Campaign staffers. The presiding officer the senate will come to order. The chaplain will legal the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, we are grateful for your goodness, your faithful love endures forever. We cannot list the miracles you have done throughout our lives and history. Lord, establish our lawmakers with your might. When they go through dry and barren places, become for them a stream of water in lifes desert. Demonstrate your mighty wisdom as they seek to solve the daunting problems of our time. May your promises never fail, as your will is done on earth even as it is done on heaven. Eternal spirit, you are the rock of our salvation, our help in ages past and our hope for years to come. We pray in your mighty name. Amen. The presiding officer please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The presiding officer the clerk will read a communication to the senate. The clerk washington d. C, october 30, 2017, to the senate under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable todd young , a senator from the state of indiana, to perform the duties of the chair. Signed orrin g. Hatch, president pro tempore. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell for the past eight years we had a president who selected nominees for our nations judiciary based upon what became known as the empathy standard. The empathy standard. An ideological litmus test designed to find judicial nominees who would favor certain groups or individuals over others. Thats a great standard if youre the party in the case whom the judge has empathy for. Its not so great if youre the other person. Not only does this standard deny every litigant a fair shake, it also disregards our nations bedrock legal tradition of dispensing equal justice under the law. President trump, on the other hand, is selecting nominees who will 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 mcnad mcfadden as the District Court judge for the district of columbia. Not one vote in opposition. Democrats needlessly delayed his vote here on the floor anyway. Weve seen many delay tactics from them already this year. We pushed through every time. Were going to push through again today. Were going to confirm the impressive judicial nominee before us, and were 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. The i filed cloture last week on four four wellqualified Circuit Court nominees. These nominees understand their role as a judge is to put aside their personal preferences and instead decide cases based on what the law says. Well confirm all of them this week no matter how long that takes. The first of these four Circuit Court nominees well 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 Lawrence Silverman of the d. C. Circuit and then for justice scalia. These prestigious clerkships gave her the opportunity to work closely with two giants of the legal field. Today shes a respected professor at the university of notre dame where, by the way, she was horned honored as distinguished professor of the year twice. Professor barrett would bring a wealth of knowledge to the bench. Now, professor barrett happens to be catholic. Her faith is important to her. Shes 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. Now unbelievably some on the political left, including some of our democratic colleagues, are criticizing her because as a law student she wrote a law journal article that argued just that. Her coauthor of the article, john garvey, is now president of catholic university. He recently wrote the following amy barrett, a law professor at notre dame, was grilled by democrats on the senate Judiciary Committee about an article we 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, 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 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 didnt get that far in reading the article. The 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 the judicial oath to faithfully follow the law. Well, president garvey noted, however, barrett said no such thing. We said no such thing. We said precisely the opposite. This opposition for barrett is so upside down which leads garvey wondering whether there is Something Else going on here. The case against professor barrett is so flimsy garvey concluded that you have to wonder whether there isnt some other unspoken cause for their objection. The president of notre dame also weighed in about these criticisms about professor barrett. Heres some of what he said in his letter to the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. Your concern as you expressed it, he wrote, is that dogma lives loudly in professor barrett. 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, he continued, 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. Or the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the law should command respect, not evoke concern. Professor barrett, he wrote, has made it clear that she would follow unflinchingly all legal precedent and in rare cases in which her conscious would not allow her to do so, she would recuse herself. Ill 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. So, mr. President , let me remind colleagues that article 6 of the constitution provides that, quote, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office. United states 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 of our judiciary and our nation will be better off. I strongly support her nomination and would urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Schumer mr. President. The presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer thank you, mr. President. Good afternoon. This morning the former chairman of the Trump Campaign for president and a close associate turned themselves in to federal authorities on a dozen charges, including acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power and conspiracy against the United States. The indictments of mr. Manafort and mr. Gates show that the special counsels probe is progressing in a very serious way. Mueller is moving forward. What we know now is that an alleged unregistered Foreign Agent who was charged with laundering tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments on behalf of their agenda was given the chairmanship of a campaign for the presidency of the United States and with it untold influence on a future president and his party. And we know that mr. Manafort has had continuing contact with the president since his resignation from the campaign. Just as shocking was the admission by a Trump Campaign advisor that he met with a kremlin contact to discuss socalled dirt on secretary clinton. While we know that mr. Popa mr. Popadopalous had contact with others, his admission raises many more questions than it answers. Mr. Mueller and his team should be allowed to seek answers to those questions without interference from the president or anyone else. The stakes could not be higher. Were talking about the pride and wellspring of our grand democracy free and fair elections, which have been going on for more than two centuries, and were disturbed and adult rated adulterated by a hostile foreign power with no good intent for the people of this country. Its critical that we need to get to the bottom of this. That is special counsel muellers job, and he must be allowed to perform it without interference. The rule of law is paramount in america. We pride ourselves on it. The investigation must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. The president must not under any circumstances in any way interfere with the special counsels work. If he does, Congress Must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the Investigation Continues and truth, the whole truth comes out. Now, on judges. Mr. President , this week, the majority leader has scheduled votes on four Circuit Court nominations. Its the first time in my memory that the senate is being asked to process four Circuit Court judges in a single week. The Circuit Courts have an immense influence on our country, adjudicating some of the thorniest of legal issues. Only the rarest and most vexing Circuit Court decisions are appealed to and taken up by the Supreme Court. For this reason, we typically dont sandwich Circuit Court nominees back to back to back to back. Only a week, only a week after they have emerged from committee because members who are not on the Judiciary Committee usually need time, always need time to review these candidates for such important, powerful and farreaching positions. And why has the majority leader departed from this practice . Well, one can argue its because the republican agenda has been such a failure in this congress. The leader has chosen to try and accomplish through the courts what republicans have been unable to achieve through the legislative process. The republican agenda has been so unpopular with the American People that it has stalled at every juncture, so now they have made a grazen move to pack the courts with activist judges and remake them in their conservative, ideological image. Why has the majority leader done it . The hard right, frustrated by the failure of repeal and replace, has for months been pressuring senator mcconnell to do something aggressive. Senator mcconnell once again, despite his desire to make the senate work and i believe that is sincere is bending to the hard right of his party by jamming through these judges, breaking the norms and traditions of the senate in the process. I intend to oppose these extremist nominees. Finally, mr. President , on taxes. The republicans have promised to release the details of their tax plan this week. After months of talking about a plan with very few specifics, well finally get to see how the Republican Leadership plans to rewrite the tax code. From all indications so far, the details of the republican tax plan will be cheered by those in the country clubs and Corporate Board rooms. Working americans, on the other hand, might not have very much to cheer about. The top 1 , law firms, Hedge Fund Managers can celebrate a lower top rate and an enormous new tax loophole in the form of lower rates on passthroughs. People who will most take advantage of these passthroughs are not Small Businesses. They cant afford all the lawyers and stuff. It will be the biggest, the most powerful, the richest. The wealthiest 5,200 families in america, those with the with estates over 5 million, can celebrate the absurd repeal of the estate tax. Corporate america can celebrate hundreds of billions in tax cuts, which large corporations usually spend, not on new jobs. Its not what the history shows, but on c. E. O. Bonuses, stock buybacks, dividends. So while the wealthy and well off will be busy celebrating the new tax breaks they might get if the republican plan passes, working america will be looking over their shoulder at some real tax hikes. Republicans are debating how to eliminate or reduce state and local deductibility, a bedrock middleclass deduction claimed by nearly a third of all taxpayers, the vast majority of whom make less than 200,000 a year. The republican framework says they are going to eliminate the deduction, which totals tens of thousands of dollars a year for many working families. Thats why removing state and local removes 1. 3 trillion in revenue, and the g. O. P. Plans to spend that tax increase that theyre getting from the middle class on tax cuts for big corporations and the superrich. To be clear, its a 1. 3 trillion hike on middleclass families. Now, there is a compromise on state and local deductibility that has been floated in the press. Its hardly much better. The republicans are talking about continuing to allow state and local deductibility for property taxes, but not income and sales taxes. That compromise raises 900 billion, meaning that republicans, even with the compromise, are instituting a trilliondollar nearly a trilliondollar tax hike on working families to pay for breaks at the very top. No matter how they construct this compromise, republicans are still socking it to the middle class and the upper middle class, but this time picking winners and losers. Sales taxes hit consumers the hardest. Ending the state and local deductibility for sales tax would fall on the backs of working class and middleclass americans, particularly in states like tennessee, florida, and nevada which dont have an income tax but have a large sales tax. States like chairman bradys, texas, on the other hand, which have very high property taxes, would be much better off. Worse still, the tax hike from this socalled soft compromise would put huge pressure on state and local governments across the country whether to make the agonizeing decision about whether to raise taxes or cut spending for services, education, law enforcement, hospitals, highway building on which their constituents, their middleclass constituents rely. A warning to my republican colleagues from high sales tax states like tennessee, florida, and nevada, and high income states, a lot of republican congressmen in those states of new york, new jersey, california, minnesota, virginia, colorado, that this state and local compromise will not solve your problem. The compromise does not solve your problem. It will still hit your constituents right in their wallets. Now, another debate on the other side of the aisle is how to cap americans pretax contributions to their 401k plans. Can you believe it . Here in america, were going to help the middle class save, where we want to encourage savings, were making it harder . In laymans terms, here is what our republican colleagues want to do. They want to tax your 401ks. I cant believe my republican friends are even considering such a bad idea. We have had bipartisan support on expanding the ability to retire, particularly now that so Many Companies are no longer giving pensions. Giving americans the ability to put away pretax dollars for their retirement is one of the few provisions in our tax code that encourages early savings. Capping the amount americans can contribute pretax, or in other words turning every 401 k into something more like a roth i. R. A. Will discourage americans from savings and handicap their ability to retire with dignity and security now that defined benefits plans are declined. For years, we democrats, often joined by republican colleagues, have fought for policies that would make 401ks more attractive, provide greater benefits. In other words, the exact opposite of what the Republican Leadership is considering. We put forward proposals on auto enrollment, increasing incentives for businesses that enroll workers and match contributions, and letting Small Businesses pool together to offer plans. Each of these ideas would