quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired and the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 62, the nays are 34. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will

be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on michael brennan of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the seventh circuit. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that michael b. brennan of wisconsin to be united states circuit judge shall be closed? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 49. the noes are 47. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, michael b. brennan of wisconsin to be united states circuit judge for the seventh circuit.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lift fundamental there is one. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you. one year ago today, the president of the united states did the unthinkable.

he did at least what many people thought was unthinkable. he fired the director of the federal bureau of investigation james comey. shortly thereafter, he acknowledged the reason. he told nbc leicester holt that he fired james comey because he was thinking about, quote, this russia thing with trump, end quote, and how unjustified he thought the investigation was. he later told officials of vladimir putin's government. in the oval office, he said this firing relieved him of the pressure he was feels as a result of the russia investigation. the one-year anniversary of jim

comey's firing might well be permitted to pass without notice. but little did we know at the time that it would be part of a relentless and repeated denunciation of professional law enforcement at the federal bureau of investigation, at the department of justice, even at the c.i.a. and law enforcement agencies all around the country. this concerted and coordinated attack on the f.b.i. and the department of justice is no accident. it is part of a strategy to undermine the credibility not only of the special counsel's investigation of conclusion by the trump campaign with russia in its meddling in the 2016 election and the potential

obstruction of justice and coverup by the president and his administration but also because it is deeply alarming as an attack on professional law enforcement. the president's attacks have become so numerous and so brazen that they have almost become the new normal. likewise, the attacks by his sicsurrogates in congress undermining the credibility and trust of the f.b.i. and the department of justice. that's why i'm here today because words have consequences. these attacks have ramifications for the f.b.i. when it investigates a crime, the willingness of potential

witnesses to talk to them may be undermined. their ability to prevent crime because informants trust them will be undercut. and the credibility of f.b.i. agents at a trial in a conflict of credibility with a defendant who is lying can be sabotaged by the president through these denunciation, far beyond the special prosecutor investigation. this attack on law enforcement has consequences for the safety and security of our nation, indeed our national security, because the f.b.i. needs those informants, needs credibility as witnesses, needs its trust of the american people to do its job in keeping america safe from

sabotage or subterfuge internally as well as organized crime, drug dealing, the pa pany of threats that exist to our safety. it is no accident that terrorist attacks have been reduced in severity since 9/11. it is no accident that crime is at lower levels than in recent years. it's no accident that americans feel safer as they walk the streets and communities of america, rural and urban. it is because we've devoted resources to local law enforcement as well as the federal agencies that are vital to support that local law enforcement with the information and data that they need to do their job and with the enforcement that they do in solving crime and making sure

that the bad guys are convicted and go away. the best laws in the world are a dead letter if they are unenforced. the new laws that we pass here will mean nothing without strong and effective law enforcement. and so we should all be deeply alarmed and concerned about this new normal of a president of the united states who is responsible for taking care that the laws are faithfully executed actually attacking the agency that is doing the enforcement necessary for execution of those laws. a few examples. on april 6, 2018, a notice

appeared on the front page of backpage.com confirming that the department of justice seized the website and took it off-line, a crucial and important step in the fight against sex trafficking. on that same date, the f.b.i. raided the sedona home of michael lace circumstance a founder of backpage.com, and one of the seven individuals charged in a 93-count indictment for a federal crime relating to facilitating prosecution and laundering money for years. for years backpage.com and its owners have knowingly concealed criminality by editing its adult ads to facilitate private tuition and trafficking including modern-day slavery of children. backpage.com's conduct led that

the prosecution of a 14-year-old connecticut girl hoves advertised without the intervention of the department of justice and f.b.i., many more children could have been exploited and victimized by backpage, and we know about the extraordinary magnitude of backpage's activities and about the deep harm that it caused as a result of an investigation performed by senate committees and the senate has taken steps to stop that kind of promotion on the internet as a result of legislation that senator rob portman of ohio and i led here, legislation called sesta, passed

overwhelmingly you bipartisan legislation that will assist victims to have their day in court and law enforcement to do even better against sex trafficking. that story is just one example of the laudable work that the department of justice and the f.b.i. do every day to keep america safe. the attack against them has extraordinary irony and harm because it seeks to sow doubt about democratic institutions that are vital to our way of life. and president trump has literally taken a page from his authoritarian heroes who systematically seek to say that the law is not what our enforcement agencies say, not what our democratic institutions

say but what they say. he has persistent lids and purposefully -- he has persistently and purposefully attempted to undermine all of the department of justice. and the fact is, these attacks have effect when they come from the president's mouth. they have consequences. not surprisingly, these repeated cause stick and careless attacks have diminished public confidence in these institutio institutions. since donald trump entered office, reports suggest that the number of americans who view the f.b.i. favorably has diminished by 20%. just 38% of republicans have confidence in the f.b.i. that is distressing for a party that once espoused and supported law and order. and the long-term negative

collateral consequences of these assaults is on our top law enforcement agencies are likely to be extensive. consider the dedication and the courage, the tenacity and strength that is required of the f.b.i. to do their job day in and day out, putting their lives on the line, literally risking their well-being -- not history of a year or -- not over a year or a couple of years but many of them for careers, a lifetime. they are among the finest men and women in public service. the f.b.i. is our premier law enforcement institution. the department of justice is and should be the marvel of the world for its fairness and its

unrelenting dedication to do justice. as one attorney general said, justice jackson, its goal is not to seek convictions but to do justice. and that's the mission that it performs. it's illustrated by a recent case by the department of justice's national security and civil rights division, which shows how donald trump's attacks are weakening support for the f.b.i.'s important work. in march of this year, three anti-muslim militia members who were on trial for plotting to slaughter somali refugees in southwest kansas adopted a defense strategy that could have been taken directly from the trump playbook. or from his twitter feed. defense attorneys in that case argued that a biased f.b.i.

conspired against their clients because of their political beliefs. their political beliefs, the defendants said, were responsible for their prosecution -- not their own action. in a turn of phrase, very suggestive of the president's twitter feed, a defense attorney argued that the defendant's discussion of i will canning muslim, quote, cockroaches, end quote, amounted to, quote, locker room talk, end quote. which was inspired, no doubt, partly by the 2016 election. and the government meanwhile had to deal with jurors who expressed a number of concerns about the honesty and corruption at the top levels of the f.b.i., questioning the ability and integrity of the organization.

a somali resident of the apartment complexing the defendants were plotting to blow up felt differently about the f.b.i. investigation. she and other residents said the verdict allayed their fears and affirmed their faith in the justice system. it was because of the work of dedicated law enforcement professionals that the defendants' plan to bomb innocent, peaceful muslim immigrants was thwarted in a victory for the rule of law, a victory for civil rights, and for our national security. but the president of the united states, instead of applauding or lauding victories like this one, continues to spread a false narrative. his sole purpose is advancing his political agenda, protecting

his own self, and shielding himself from accountability. his attacks designed to undermine the credibility of the f.b.i. are designed to shield himself from responsibility and apparent culpability for possible criminal wrongdoing. and in reality the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. work every day to protect americans against threats, both foreign and domestic, while upholding the constitution. the department of justice includes more than 40 separate organizations, including the f.b.i., and more than 110,000 employees. i know about the ones in connecticut. as a former united states attorney, the ethic and

tradition of u.s. attorneys' offices is about upholding the rule of law and dedication to doing justice. the f.b.i. has more than 36,000 employees spread over 56 field offices around the united states. they are dedicated to protecting the united states from terrorism, cyber attacks, public corruption, violent crime, and abridgement of civil rights. according to its most recent annual report, the f.b.i. disrupted more than 700 terrorist incident incidents an0 violent criminal organizations in 2017 alone. and the f.b.i. targets crime not only in the streets but in boardrooms. in the same time period, it

disrupted more than 430 criminal enterprises engaged in white white-collar crime. let's make no mistake. wrongdoing affects real people in their real lives. there are very few victimless crimes, if any. every crime has some victim and some survivor. that's the reason that they are prosecuted. and we hire those prosecutors and f.b.i. agents to go after lawbreakers. we should reward them for disrupting and deterring the lawbreakers, not denounce them, as the president has done. the f.b.i.'s hard work in building cases the right way leads to victories in the courtroom, and i have seen them

and prosecuted them myself. the prosecutor, whether it's an assistant u.s. attorney or a u.s. attorney, contributes mightily to those victories. but they would be impossible without the nuts and bolts, investigative work, the shoe leather and sometimes the very significant risk involved in uncovering the truth and bringing it to court. sometimes f.b.i. agents work for months under cover an a single case -- on a single case at grave jeopardy to themselves. more than 90% of terrorism and gang-related cases result in a conviction, a judgment favorable to the united states. and these statistics, which i've cited here, represent only a

fraction of the work these agencies do to protect americans every day in real life for real people, despite president trump's efforts to water down environmental protections, the f.b.i. continues to pursue cases where corporations violate clean water and clean air standards. and threaten public health. at the end of april, the department of justice charged the ex-c.e.o. of volkswagen with conspiracy with the company's rigging of emissions defamed clients and fallsly portrayed compliance with the company's and federal standards. volkswagen deceived american regulators. so why should that matter to ordinary americans? well, it's an unlevel playing field with its competitors if it

cuts corners. so it impacts fair competition. but it also impacts our clean air and the safety and health of americans who breathe that air. and essentially they not only deceives regulators, but they defrauded american consumers for years, promising them those standards which they knew they were failing to meet. only because of the tireless efforts of federal investigators and prosecutors was the company's chief executive now brought to justice to face these charges. the department of justice action sent a message to businesses both here and abroad that efforts to cheat american consumers or harm the environment will have

consequences. they ought to pay attention. they ought to be deterred. and the department of justice also developed key initiatives to respond to urgent threats, particularly in the front line against terrorism. the f.b.i.'s joint terrorism strike force is comprised of small cells of high-trained locally based passionate, committed investigators, analysts, linguists, swat experts and other specialists from dozens of united states law enforcement and intelligence agencies. they operate as part of the f.b.i. joint terrorism task force because the f.b.i. has that responsibility for our national security, along with them as a team. when it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all. they chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide

security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment's notice. these task forces are based in 104 cities nationwide, including at least one in each of the f.b.i.'s field offices. without any exaggeration, these investigators and prosecutors protect us. they protect american lives from terrorist threats both at home and abroad. just last month f.b.i. agents working with the newark joint terrorism task force thwarted a plot of five men to join isis and carry out an attack in isis's name on united states soil using homemade bombs. because of their brave and

tenacious efforts, and their countless hours of hard work hour after hour, day after day, this plot and many others like it were disrupted and american lives were saved. america has always faced threats to our national security and public safety, even as they are more complex today than ever before. we need the kind of professionalism that the f.b.i. and the department of justice and other agencies bring to law enforcement every day. for all of us who have been federal prosecutors, whether united states attorney, as i was, or in another capacity, these attacks are repugnant.

they belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the ethos and tradition of justice and the rule of law in our democracy. unfortunately, president trump has failed not only to stand up for those law enforcement agencies, he's actually hindered actively and consistently their vital work in protecting our nation. he has undermined their stature and credibility. he has attacked their integrity all without any basis in fact. president reagan once said facts are stubborn things. the american people should know

the facts. and if they do, they'll appreciate that the facts show that the department of justice and the f.b.i., even with their faults, are a paragon of law enforcement. and their faults should not be minimized or dismissed. they ought to be addressed, but not by denouncing or demeaning their hard work. the numbers and statistics i've given, the examples i've cited are not meant defensively for them. they don't need my defense. their actions and their work speak louder than anyone's words. i hope they will continue that service and sacrifice under

discouraged and undeterred by these rash and reckless attacks from the president and surrogates who support him. i personally thank them for their service and sacrifice. all americans should. and i thank many of them for their friendship. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. this week the senate will vote on the nomination of michael b. brennan to serve on the seventh circuit court of appeals in milwaukee. judge brennan is a highly qualified nominee with broad bipartisan support in his home state of wisconsin.

the senate judiciary committee received numerous letters in support of judge brennan's nomination, including from the longtime democratic milwaukee district attorney. i fully support this nomination. i've heard from some of my colleagues, and especially those on the other side of the aisle, that they believe judge brennan shouldn't have received a hearing before the judiciary committee. they say this because one senator from wisconsin didn't return the blue slip. but their opinions are based on an incorrect understanding of the blue slip's history. as i explained last year several times on the senate floor and several times in committee, the

blue slip courtesy is just that. a courtesy. it has a history going back to 1970. since then the chairman of the judiciary committee -- chairmen of the judiciary committee have distributed blue slips to home state senators to get feedback on nominees to the federal bench in their respective states. chairmen have applied the blue slip courtesy differently in its 100-year history. for the first 39 years of its existence, the blue slip had no bearing on whether a nominee went through the committee process. then in 1956, senator james east land of mississippi became chairman. he started requiring both home state senators to return positive blue slips before the committee would ever proceed on

a judicial nomination. scholars maintain that chairman eastland adopted this policy to allow southern senators to veto nominees sympathetic to the supreme court decision in brown vs. the board of education. then when senator ted kennedy took over the chairmanship from senator eastland -- that was 1979 -- he went back to the original blue slip policy. then comes along chairman strom thurmond, continuing that policy. and then comes along chairman joe biden, continuing that policy. and chairman orrin hatch followed that policy. under the policies of those chairmen just mentioned, negative or unreturned blue

slips did not necessarily preclude a hearing for a nominee. when senator leahy became chairman during the bush administration, he did away with this policy and resurrected chairman eastland's strict blue slip policy. and the reason for this strict blue slip policy was obvious to everyone at that time, at least obvious to everybody on our side of the aisle, to block president george w. bush's judicial nominees based on politics and ideology, something that never played much of a role in a lot of these nominations prior to 2002. in sum, only two of my 18 predecessors who extended the

blue slip courtesy required sign-off from both home state senators. when senator leahy adopted an historical blue slip policy, that was his prerogative as chairman. nobody argues with that. but it's my prerogative to have the same blue slip policy as chairman biden and kennedy and the vast majority of predecessors. accordingly, i have said this, that negative or unreturned blue slips will not necessarily preclude the hearing for circuit court nominees unless the white house failed to consult with home state senators. and i get all sorts of information -- i demand all

sorts of information from the white house on this sort of consultation that's gone on. that is why i held hearings for david strauss, kyle duncan, michael b. brennan and ryan bound despite the lack of two positive blue slips from home state senators. this policy is completely bipartisan. i've applied it to blue slips of democratic and republican senators. some people have suggested that i had a different blue slip policy during the final two years of president obama's administration. they pointed to nine judicial nominees with blue slip problems who didn't receive hearings. but five of these nominees were

to district courts. and i've said repeatedly that i'm less likely to proceed on district court nominees without two positive blue slips. with respect to the four circuit court nominees who didn't receive hearings during the last congress, their nominations simply came too late in the congress to process. they were nominated during the presidential election year of 2016, and in presidential election years, then we have the leahy-thurmond rule that applies. under the leahy-thurmond rule, the senate typically stops confirming judges by midsummer. i'm assuming i gave senators in 2016 the same timeline as i gave former senator franken to return his blue slip for justice

strauss. we wouldn't have started holding hearings then until 2016. and by delaying until that period of time, we would have not had the record number of circuit court judges that we had during this presidency. because then the leahy-thurmond rule would have barred their confirmations. these four nominations -- these four nominees also lack floor support, and it would have been a waste of time and resources if we had proceeded. that was my judgment as chairman. chairman leahy similarly refused to hold hearings for at least six circuit court nominees for reasons besides blue slips.

he denied hearings to three nominees in the fourth circuit: steve matthews, robert conrad, and glen conrad. these nominees had two positive blue slips from their home state senators and two were nominated more than a year before the 2008 presidential election. but even then chairman leahy refuse the to process it. chairman leahy also refused to act on the nomination of peter kishler, president bush's nominee to the d.c. circuit who was nominated in 2006. obviously blue slips were not the reason for my predecessor's decision to stall mr. kishler's nomination for more than two

years since the district of columbia has nor senators. this decision allowed president obama then to stack the d.c. circuit and also the fourth circuit with liberal judges. chairman leahy also declined to hold hearings for two sixth court nominees to ohio seats even though both ohio senators had returned positive blue slips. the dc circuit senators from michigan asked chairman leahy to halt proceeding on all six circuit nominees, not just those from michigan. so chairman leahy honored this request and denied a hearing to ohio nominees even though the blue slips had been returned. this was the first time ever a

chairman allowed senators to halt committee proceedings on nominees for seats in other states. as chairman leahy's example shows, there isn't just one reason, there will multiple reasons for any chairman of the judiciary committee to deny a hearing to a nominee. likewise, my decision not to hold hearings for the four nominees in 2016 wasn't based solely on the lack of blue slips. it's simply false then for my colleagues to say that i changed my blue slip policy since last -- since that particular time. as to my decision then to hold a hearing on the nominee now before the senate, judge brennan, i was satisfied that the white house adequately

consulted with both wisconsin senators. the white house sought input from the wisconsin senators and considered all the candidates recommended by each senator. i understand the frustration that wisconsin's judicial nomination commission hasn't worked as had been planned by the two senators, but judge brennan was the only candidate to receive bipartisan support from the commission process that's used in wisconsin. moreover, the commission's dysfunction can't be used as an excuse to deny the president to exercise his constitutional authority to make judicial nominations. i'd also like to point out that each senator who has withheld a blue slip this congress also

voted to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations back in 2013. so then you have this sort of an argument. the argument then was that 41 senators shouldn't be allowed to block the will of a majority of this senate, but now these same senators have reversed themselves saying any one senator should have the right -- should have that right through holding a blue slip to denying the senate an opportunity to vote. so understand just a few years ago they wanted to abolish 41 senators holding up a nomination but today they stand before us and say that one senator ought to be able to do what 41

senators -- what they said 41 senators couldn't do. i won't allow the blue slip to be abused in this way. the blue slip is meant to encourage consultation between the white house and home state senators. it's not a way for senators to have veto power over nominees for political or ideology cal reasons -- ideological reasons. finally i hear about the president stacking the court or the senate rubber stamping the nominees. well, i stand by our process. it gives every senator an opportunity to deeply probe into a nominee's background, as five nominees from last year will attest, not everyone makes it through this rigorous scrutiny. i'd like to bring attention to

two recent supreme court decisions that the trump administration lost. in sessions vs. daman, the supreme court held that an immigrant could not be deported under vague statutory decisions. the pivotal vote was cast by justice neil gorsuch. then in another case, chicago vs. sessions, the seventh circuit held that the government could not deny funding to so-called sanctuary cities. it happens that the three judges that carried that case were all appointed by republican presidents. i bring up these cases not because i agree or disagree with their outcomes, but simply to point out that the fears of the

president stacking the judiciary are overblown. conservative judges apply the law as written, regardless of the results, but i suppose liberals expect their judges to be results oriented, and that is why we can always confidently predict how a liberal judge might rule on a case. liberal outside groups real fear then is that newly confirmed judges recognize that their role is to neutrally apply the law, not to legislate from the bench. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: