soon and i'm happy about that. >> where these materials stored, generally speaking? >> all over the place. we are talking thousands of facilities. uranium, plutonium highly enriched uranium and then there is a civilian uses, i mention the thousands of sites in the united states and thousands more overseas. thousands of tons of this stuff. for example in cancer treatment they use cobalt 60. a radioisotope. that stuff is in medical facilities all around the world. there was a facility and mows all and iraq that had cobalt 60. there was some concern that the islamic state would know that, figure it out and get to the material. thank goodness they did not. that stuff is all around the world. nuclear security.

>> we will leave this year as a u.s. senate is about to gavel into session. returning from their weeklong july 4 recess. they will work on the nomination of mark jeremy bennett. a judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals. scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern today. .. . the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. he will lead the senate in prayer. >> let us pray. sacred god. you feel our hearts with

songs. we are grateful for the hope joy and justice you bring to our world. think you will that he will judge the world with righteousness and your people with truth. guide our lawmakers leave them even through life's dark places as they placed their total trust in you lord, remind them that darkness protect them from life's storms, for you are their help in ages past and their hope for years to come. inspire them with your joy, as you place your peace in their hearts.

we pray in you strong 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, july 9 2018. 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. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the bennett nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. mark jeremy bennett of hawaii to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum mr. president? the presiding officer: we're not in quorum call. mr. schumer: now mr. president, as everyone knows, later tonight president trump will announce his nomination for the upcoming vacancy on the supreme court.

whoever fills justice kennedy's seat will join an otherwise evenly divided court and immediately obtain the ability to effect the laws of the united states and the rights of its citizens for generations to come. enormously important issues hang in the balance: the right of workers to organize, the pernicious influence of dark money in our politics, the right of americans to marry whom they love the right to vote. two issues of similar and profound consequence are the fate of the affordable health care and a woman's freedom to make the most sensitive medical decisions about her body. these two rights: affordable health care and a woman's freedom to make sensitive health care decisions hang in the balance with this nominee. the views of president trump's next court nominee could very

well determine whether the senate approves or rejects this nomination. now, president trump has already made up his mind. president trump has repeatedly said that he believes roe was wrongly decided. he has promised in his own words to nominate only pro-life judges whose selection will result in the automatic overturning of roe v. wade. those are his words. pro-life judges, automatic. he also said that chief justice roberts has been an absolute disaster -- his words -- for voting to uphold the health care law, and said his judicial appointments will, quote do the right thing unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obamacare. unquote. it is near impossible to imagine

that president trump would select a nominee who isn't hostile to our health care law and health care for millions and millions and millions of americans, who isn't hostile to a woman's freedom to make her own health care decisions. we can be sure of this because president during the campaign, ask len in order leo the -- leonard leo the founder of the federalist society to assemble a list of possible supreme court justices to pick from. mr. leo was not only aware of candidate trump's preference for a supreme court justice that would reverse roe v. wade, he himself spent his career in pursuit of it. and that's not just my view. according to edward whalen, one of the most prominent legal conservative activist and

bloggers said, quote no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe v. wade than "the federalist" society's leonard leo. no one has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than the very man who chose the list of 25. that's what we're up against here and that's why america is on tinterhooks so worried about any choice from this list. let me repeat again. mr. leonard leo is the man who assembled trump's list of potential supreme court nominees and no one -- no one -- has been more dedicated to overturning roe v. wade than leonard leo. now, normally in the senate we have a process of advise and consent on the supreme court. in the old days the president would consult with republicans and democrats in the senate on a

qualified judge and then after careful deliberation nominate a jurist that could get bipartisan support. what we have here is the exact opposite. the president has gone to two far out of the mainstream hard-right groups: the heritage foundation and "the federalist" society, and asked them, not the senate to advise and consent on a supreme court nomination. whomever the president selects tonight, if that nominee is from the pre-approved list selected by leo and the heritage foundation everyone ought to understand what it means for the freedom of women to make their own health care decisions. and for ot protection for -- and for the protection for americans with preexisting conditions. those rights will be gravely threatened.

mr. president, now we're going to hear a lot this summer about precedents. the tradition question on these matters has been will the nominee defer to precedent? nominees will be asked if they respect settled law. this is known as the principle of stare decisis. the nominee always answers that, question he or she will respect and defer to precedent. and senators nod their heads having received this rickety vague assurance that the nominee will not rock the judicial boat and turn the clock back decades. but for two reasons this standard settled law, stare decisis, is no longer an adequate standard by which to judge nominees. why? well first, we have ample example from the past several years of judges who have sworn

in their confirmation hearings to respect precedent and then reverse their stand once on the court. for example in his confirmation hearing, then judge gorsuch said that quote precedent is like our shared family history of judges. it deserves our respect. unquote. last week, just last week, now justice gorsuch voted to overturn 41 years of precedent in the janus decision relying on flimsy and fabricated legal theory. it was so flimsy in fact that judge kagan wrote in dissent that the majority overrule precedent, quote for not exceptional or special reason, but because it never liked the decision subverting all known principles of stare decisis. justice roberts another person who swore he would obey precedent, he said he called balls and strikes as he saw

them, rather than interpret law law -- sorry. justice roberts said he would call balls and strikes as he saw them, that he would interpret law rather than make it. of course it was justice roberts who was then responsible for overturning 40 years of precedent in the citizens united decision that so set back our politics that so deepened the swamp that so many americans despise by allowing huge amounts of dark money unreported, to cascade into our political system. on two of the most important rulings in the history of the roberts court a cumulative 81 years of precedent were thrown out the window despite the earnest promises of justices roberts and gorsuch at their

hearings. so when they say they'll obey settled law you can't believe it. you can't believe it because it just hasn't happened in this new conservative court that is so eager to make law not interpret it. and there's a second reason, maybe even more more than, why the principle of, quote i'll follow settled law no longer works. and that's president trump. we already know that president trump's nominee will be prepared to overturn the precedents of roe v. wade and nfibv. sebelius. we know that because president trump has said so. when the president has a litmus test for his nominees and only choose from a preapproved list of nominees designed to satisfy that litmus test, it is

certainly not enough for a judge to prove his or her moderation by invoking stare decisis. stare decisis and respect for president have become an almost meaningless bar to set for a supreme court nominee. at this critical juncture, u.s. senators and the american people should expect an affirmative statement of support for the personal liberties of all americans from the next supreme court nominee. the american people deserve to know what kind of a justice president trump's nominee would be. president trump is the one who made the litmus test for his nominee, not us. the onus is on his nominee to show where he or she might stand. considering the ample evidence

that president trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protection for americans with preexisting conditions, give greater weight to corporate interest than the interest of our citizens, no matter what president trump says, and vote to overturn roe v. wade, the next nominee has a serious and solemn obligation to share their personal views on their legal issues no matter whom president trump selects tonight. now, briefly on another matter, the ongoing negotiations with north korea over their nuclear program. despite the pomp and circumstance, the negotiations have thus far been a flop. after the summit, president trump declared, without any evidence that, quote, north

korea is no longer a nuclear threat unquote his words to the united states. the reality, of course, is far far different. recent reports have shown that north korea is making upgrades to a nuclear facility and expanding ballistic missle manufacturing. just a few days ago north korea media called negotiations with secretary of state pompeo, quote, deeply regrettable unquote, accusing the trump administration of a unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization. talks going great and then our side is accused of being gangster like? for the president to say that north korea is no longer a nuclear threat and then have north korea's foreign ministry come back and say what they said

shows the disconnect between president trump's rhetoric and the reality and the sheer incompetentness of this administration. for who say and i hear it many times from my republican friends and in my state and throughout the country they say we don't like the president's style. we wish he didn't tweet so much, but we support him because he's, quote, getting stuff done. take a look at the yawning gap between what the president claims and what he actually achieved on north korea and on so many issues, like taxes like health care, the president makes grand promises but fails to deliver for the american people. finally, mr. president one word on health care. another issue that the president has failed to deliver on is health care. after promising far better and

cheaper health care for all americans, president trump has relentlessly sabotaged our health care system, undermined key protections for americans with preexisting conditions, done all he can to see that premiums rise, probably the number one issue bothering americans today rising health care costs. last week the trump administration found another way to sabotage our health care system suspending a critical program that stabilizing the health care insurance markets. this comes at a time when 2019 premiums are being filed and insurers from coast to coast and is saying the republican sabotage is causing premiums to increase to be much higher than they need to be. many of these insurers are also saying if the trump administration enacts further sabotage such as the action like this one and the action of

junk plans then insurers may need to raise their rates and raise premiums even more. this relentless health care sabotage is politically motivated, spiteful and accomplishes nothing except to raise costs on middle-class families the trump administration needs to fix this newest sabotage as quickly as possible. i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president i understand there is no quorum call in progress, is that correct? the presiding officer: that's

correct. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this evening the president of the united states will perform his duty to nominate a person to serve as the next supreme court justice as the -- to fill the vacancy left by associate justice anthony kennedy who announced his retirement at the end of july. i look forward to joining the president this evening along with a number of my colleagues for that historic announcement. it's an important day because the person selected will help decide many cases that will have a deep and lasting impact on american history. certainly justice kennedy played that role many times in many close cases but there are a great many talented men and women that are qualified for justice kennedy's seat, i believe, and that's why the president's choice is so difficult. all of these candidates that have been identified as a potential pool of candidates have the intellectual capacity

that has developed over many years, along with the rigorous understanding of the law that demonstrated their analytical skill in a variety of ways by studying at top-tiered law schools and clerking for the justices in the supreme court in public speeches, articles they've written and working at the highest levels until government and private law firms. and, of course, in the case of the final four serving on an appellate bench the mid-level intermediate federal court which for all practical cases is the court of last resort since the supreme court only hears 80 or so cases a year. i know the president considered a handful of these jurists who's revealed a list of potential appointees to the court when he ran for president and i think that probably was one reason why

he was elected because when people saw that the quality and the experience and the qualifications of the individuals that he said he would consider for the supreme court, i think it gave them greater confidence that he would choose wisely given the opportunity as president to appoint somebody to the court. these individuals, of course, who are in the pool of perspective nominees have come from -- come from different academic and professional backgrounds, but i have no doubt the selection will be a good one primarily because of the one appointment that the president has already made to the supreme court, and that is, of course, justice neil gorsuch. justice gorsuch did not disappoint those of us that supported his nomination during his first years on -- year on the court. he's demonstrated not only the power of the pen but the charity of his thought and his force of legal reasoning.

i'm sure that his predecessor justice justice scalia that he left such a record of accomplishment in such a short time. prumg and justice -- president trump and justice gorsuch taught us a valuable lesson. the nominee of the supreme court should not be the life stories of the justices themselves because the interpretation of the law should always be separate and apart from the people that apply it and the justices and their work must be insulated from the day to day politics that ham inside this capitol building and the state houses around the country. the court is not a partisan or political institution after all, that's the way that our founders and our founding documents wanted it to be. wisely they wanted somebody who

would make a final decision in the event of a controversy or a lawsuit, but the court itself should not put a finger on the scale or be a player in the partisan battles that occur here in washington, d.c. indeed the court should be and is a separate and equal branch of government and must stand on its own apart from the political biases and persuasions that pervade the district of columbia. so i along with many other people, am excited to hear the president's choice. but before we begin the confirmation process let me acknowledge the work and legacy of departing justice kennedy. i want to thank justice kennedy for his 40-plus years serving this country on the bench. he presided and authored the majority opinion of many cases of national importance. he may be hard to pigeonhole at times, but he is committed to

upholding the integrity of the judiciary throughout the course of his career. as a former state supreme court justice myself, i can attest the work of a judge is painstaking time consuming but obviously extraordinary important. we're grateful to justice kennedy for his willingness and ability and determination to carry out his important work as a federal judge. after being appointed by president reagan and soig on the supreme court he furthered the pursuit of justice through calm times an turbulent times as well. he was an important member of the court that recognized the right to keep and bear arms to the second amendment and he limited immigration from countries that have no ability to vet and to identify potential sources of terrorism in their own country.

as justice kennedy concludes his tenure on the court at the end of the month we wish him and his wife mary and their children many more happy years together. meanwhile, after the president's announcement this evening the senate will fulfill our constitutional role by providing advice and consent on whomever president trump anonymous. we plan to -- president trump nominates. we plan to consider the nominee and his or her record thoroughly. that's our responsibility. as the senior democratic senator from connecticut said recently, the senate should do nothing to artificially delay consideration of the next justice. i agree and it's consistent with the standards set by former president obama and vice president biden. in 2010, which was a midterm election just like this year, senate democrats confirmed president obama's nominee to the supreme court elena kagan. after president trump makes his

selection, senators will have the opportunity to meet with the nominee, examine his or her qualifications, debate them, and then vote. vote we will. this fall, we will vote to confirm justice kennedy's successor. i know chairman grassley will manage a fair confirmation process in the judiciary committee. he always has. and it's crucial that as this process begins to unfold, the president's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from an increasingly agitated and vitriolic democratic party. you know, the frustration my frustration is we used to debate qualifications of an individual nominee, but with the gorsuch nomination we saw that anybody that president trump would nominate would be uniformly opposed by our friends across the aisle. based on what we have seen so far, we know that the confirmation process will almost be -- certainly be contentious and we hope that people will remind themselves of the benefits of civility and

decorum. we have seen some of our friends across the aisle talk about the battle lines being drawn and other hyperbolic language. they have indicated their unwavering opposition to president trump's nominee no matter who that is, and before they even know who it is. it's extremely disappointing. our colleagues' pledge to stop a nominee at all costs is not encouraging, to say the least but i assure you we will not back down from the fight and we will see president trump's nominee confirmed on a timely basis, consistent with previous nominees. the stakes are too important and the character of the eventual nominee we expect will be too high to allow these sorts of things to happen without pushing back. the american people deserve better. during the first 18 months of this administration, president trump has nominated and would confirm 42 members of the federal judiciary including justice gorsuch. so we look forward to another

outstanding selection and we will move efficiently and thoroughly throughout the confirmation process and like i said, we will vote to confirm the president's nominee this fall. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

his nominee caption at 818-to vote. a reminder that present trump plans to announce his choice is the next supreme court justice replacing anthony kennedy. he will make that announcement tonight and nine eastern. you can listen with the free c-span radio app. we are just learning here and this is according to the wall street journal that present trump is settling on a supreme court selection but he is mom for now. allies of a judge thomas

hearted and were prepared for the rollout of his candidacy. again we will have coverage of the announcement here on c-span. on the washington journal looking ahead at the week here in washington. he covers politics and congress who covers the white house for politico thanks for being with us. regardless of who the president nominates tonight the white house will hit the ground running. the white house has been preparing for this for quite some time. there was obviously talk about justice kennedy potentially retiring at the end of the term. and so i think we kick it into gear.

the list of 25 potential justices. and now they have a new pr mode of this. distributing bios of the potential nominees as one person told me that really matters. and then all of the outside activist groups. there are really scores of groups across the country. they will be spending big money on tv to really push this across the finish line. and the piece is titled the super bowl of politics. the neil gorgeous -- gorsuch playbook how is that unfolding today. they really liked how they have any hearings. they thought that that was key. he have a great biography for the president that it could turn to and roll out.

he have the pedigree to serve so i think that's what they're looking for not only in the nominee but the process. and so we will have to see if it goes as smoothly there are folks that were saying you are not guaranteed to get a gorsuch. they are trying to sell their potential nominees. he has really been the hallmark because part of it is donald trump sees this as a high point so far of his presidency. and something he wants to repeat. >> let's talk about a couple of key senators. how critical is she going to be in that residence decision-making process. there are two senators that they come down to. senator john mccain has been absent for this year and if we assume he will be absent again for the rest of the year or at least up until the supreme court vote you're talking about a difference of one

republican senator on the nominee to know on the nominee it will be enough to defeat that. and susan collins of maine. those are the two republicans where most of the attention has been focused right now. they were to defect from the nominee and that be enough to kill it. it weighs heavily on the present no. they are confident that they can also put pressure on several of the red estate democrats that are out there. they are hopeful that they can make that up. the key thing is. if they lose one of those. that creates the political cover for several of those democrats big battle over those democrats as well as over that. by the new york times they

basically talk about the dilemma for three red estate democrats. especially if amy barrett is selected. they could either alienate democrats or alienate republicans and give them the greater majority in the senate. or give them the chance to retake the senate. the probably if that trajectory goes and this first nominee that they make goes all the way to the boat. likely in september or possibly even october. essentially six weeks before those voters get the rollcall. t. a disaster for women. totally unacceptable.

these are just a few of the ad hominem attacks the far-left special interest groups hurled at a federal circuit court judge whom a republican president nominated to the supreme court. the name of the federal judge -- anthony kennedy. after president reagan nominated then-judge kennedy to the court in 1987, these far-left special interest groups impinged his character. they cooked up apocalyptic warnings about all the terrible things terrible things that would happen to americans if he were confirmed to the court. of course, the american people didn't buy it, and a majority of senators saw through the hyperbole and hysteria and confirmed that qualified nominee. and believe it or not mr. president, the sky didn't fall. it didn't fall.

but decades later our democratic colleagues still haven't tired of crying wolf whenever a republican president nominates anyone, anyone to the supreme court. we've seen the same november time -- same movie time after time after time. less than three years after justice kennedy's confirmation, president bush nominated david souter to the supreme court. guess what left-wing pressure groups said about david souter right after president bush elected him? that's right. the very same things you're hearing today. the same things you've heard from these same corners about every supreme court nominee named by a republican president. one organization proclaimed that justice souter might quote undo the advances made by women

minorities dissenters and other disadvantaged groups. that was about justice souter. and back in 1975, they assailed the nomination of john paul stevens. they said he lacked impartiality and opposed women's rights. that's what they said about john paul stevens. so these far-left groups have been at the same scare tactics mr. president for over 40 years. the consistency is really quite amazing. decade after decade nominee after nominee. the far left script hardly changes at all. anyone and everyone a republican president nominates to the supreme court is some kind of threat to the republic. according to the hysterical press releases that inevitably follow. no matter their qualifications,

no matter their record, no matter their reputation it's the same hyperbole the same accusations, the same old story. tonight president trump will announce his nominee to fill the current supreme court vacancy. we don't know who he will name but we already know exactly what unfair tactics the nominee will face. they won't be new and they won't be warranted. we can expect to hear how they'll destroy equal rights or demolish american health care or ruin our country in some other fictional way. justice kennedy's resignation letter had barely arrived in the president's hands before several of our democratic colleagues began declaring their blanket opposition to anyone at all anyone that the president might

name. one democratic senator stated she would resist any attempt to confirm any nominee this year, quote, it doesn't matter who he's putting forward. doesn't matter who. earlier today just today another democratic senator issued a press release declaring preemptively that he plans to oppose whomever the president nominates tonight no matter who they are. another of our democratic colleagues offered this assessment. we're looking at the destruction of the constitution of the united states as far as i can tell. it's hard to keep a straight face when you hear stuff like that. there's not even a nominee yet. justice kennedy just announced his retirement, and they're talking about the destruction of

the constitution? please give the american people some credit. this far-left rhetoric comes out every single time, but the apocalypse never comes. americans see beyond this far left among gearing this kind of fearmongerring they tried over and over again for 40 years. senators should do the same. we should evaluate this president's nominee fairly based on his or her qualifications. and we should treat the process with the respect and dignity that it deserves. the judiciary committee under the able leadership of senator grassley will hold hearings and then the nomination will come to the full senate for our consideration. one more round of 40-year-old

scare tactics will not stop us from doing the right thing. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for florida. mr. nelson: mr. president i would just say to my friend, the majority leader, that that's exactly what i intend to do is to be fair, to be respectful, to talk to and have a conversation with the nominee and then to exercise my judgment what is in the best interest of the country as well as my state of florida. mr. president i'm here to talk about a condition that's in the state of florida which is not a

very good one because what has happened is the accumulation of hot weather with extra nutrients in the water aided and abetted by the release of water as the level of lake okeechobee rises and that water having to be released because of the pressure on the dike, released to the west in the came lucie river and to the east, the st. lucie river, all of this has created a condition as i said mixed with the humidity and the heat of the summer. for the water to be so ripely ladened with nutrients that algae starts to grow and then it

starts to bloom and then it starts to get excessive. it's toxic. it's slimy. it's called blue-gren algae and it's a bloom that is spreading over those waterways. as a matter of fact, there are a lot of waterways in florida because of excess newt yefntses that in fact -- nutrients that in fact have now the growth of algae, but this is particularly acute to the east of lake okeechobee and to the west of lake okeechobee. this past week this senator went from one coast to the other. i started in fort myers examining the kalusie river. i then tbliew on to the lake, landed at the pa together -- the

pahokey river went to the arena along with my colleague from florida, that's his district, congressman hastings. we had a town hall meeting there and were able to announce some good news. that as we had requested congressman hastings, senator rubio, and i had requested to use the disaster relief money for the hurricanes which the last traunch was upwards of $80 billion, to use a portion of that to help us speed up the acceleration of the construction of the dike so that the dike can be reinforced, that the lake can hold more water without the communities around the lake being threatened that the dike

might give way because of the pressure of the water the higher the level in the lake. we were able to pass on at that meeting the announcement of the u.s. army corps of engineers and the white house having utilized part of that money and their recommendations, utilizing that $80 billion as a source of money to speed up the dike. and that was a very welcomeed announcement but it's only one part of what's got to be done. and the algae is still there. the one thing that i heard over and over from the people is they're worried about the potential health risk. these are health risks

associationed with the algae bloom -- associated with the algae bloom and they feel like they're not getting timely, accurate information on what to look for and what they should do if a bloom takes place in the waterways in their particular area. now, i want to give you some idea. these are pictures from two years ago but they're fairly accurate as to what we're seeing today. you can see this blue-gren algae here -- blue-green algae here located where some boats are tied up. you can see the effects of this same kind of algae out in more of a brackish water estuary but you're talking about some serious, serious growth of algae and that's not pretty. and let me tell you when this

stuff starts rotting the smell is awful but the question is what are the health effects of this. and the people are demanding answers and they want to know. and they should know. one young woman in fort myers told me something that was really rather surprising. she is a diver. she had been 20 miles out in the gulf of mexico and there she encountered the slimy green algae that is usually in more of the fresh water and perhaps brackish water waterways. she said she couldn't believe it. she told me that she was worried, that she may be exposed to not just toxic algae but also

to the red tide as well. now, that's another phenomenon that occurs in the water like the gulf of mexico. the red tide appear periodically -- red tide periodically appears. it's a toxin and it is very noxious to human beings when you breathe it in. of course, the young woman who is a diver again miles in the gulf of mexico is saying, with that blue-green algae meets the red tide, is that going to stimulate the red tide to release all the more toxins? we don't know. we got the same questions from residents in stuart. after i left lake okeechobee, i

flew on to stuart which is on the atlantic coast. so i started on the gulf coast. went to the atlantic coast by late afternoon. and there they were worried as well about the potential consequences to their health about the algae. officials in stuart were putting up signs in the emergency rooms warning people about the possible health risk, and they were urging them to report any algae sightings or exposure to them as soon as possible. but even with those precautions we still don't know the full picture of what the algae could mean for people's long-term health. well, mr. president that's why i have written to the centers of disease control the c.d.c., to ask that they provide the people of florida with information they

are needed to have including the warning signs that they need to have to look out for the immediate health risk associated with swimming in or near the algae or even breathing it in. and that's just the short-term effects. i've also asked the c.d.c. to look into the possible long-term effects of the algae exposure so that we can begin to take whatever protective steps that we now need to protect people living in and around these blooms. so, madam president, i ask consent that my letter to the centers for disease control be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: just last week, the

army corps of engineers had announced that additional money the $514 million in disaster supplemental funding for the herbert hoover dike, and that will complete that project earlier than 2025 accelerated to 2022. senator rubio and i requested that. this fund something on top of what we've already spent over a decade and a half of a billion shoring up the dike. this didn't just happen yesterday. this happened 15, 20 years ago and we've already spent $1 billion. well we're going to get it accelerated all the way to 2022. that's coming in time. but while getting that additional funding to speed up work on the dike is certainly

good news, it's important to remember that fixing the dike is important to public safety to protect the communities that are living around lake okeechobee. it's not the solution to ending the discharging and it's not solving the algae crisis. it's one step on the road to try to stop all of this the algae bloom that occurs every year. once that dike is fully prepared -- repaired, the army corps then expects to be able to store about six more inches of water in a big big lake like that. that's a lot of water. now, that's good news because that flexibility helps especially during the algae bloom breakouts because you can

hold more water back in the lake and don't have to dump it into the st. lucie and cal lewis hatchie. but the hole way to end those damaging discharges is to move ahead with everglades restoration projects north of the lake as well as the projects designed to take water from the lake clean it, and send it south as mother nature initially intended it to go. and that's why we need to get critical projects like the central evergrades planning project and the new reservoir in the everglades area south of the lake moving as fast as whether and to that, we need more than the small amount that the president has requested for next year. in fact, we need upwards of $200 million a year to really start

making progress in restoring the everglades. voters in florida overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the documentary stamp tax to land acquisition for environmental projects. that's why florida is so sensitive to the environment. the voters voted upon themselves an increase in the documentary stamp tax but what has happened is that the government of the state of florida hasn't been using that money for what the people intended when they voted in a referendum. instead of using that money as it was intended, the state of florida has tried to divert it to other purposes such as filling in budget shortages or

employees' salaries or other unrelated to the environment expenses and now we've got suits. it's tied up in litigation. it's further distracting from the overall goal of restoring the everglades. the federal government should take the lead and do what's right. we should move forward and fully fund the only ongoing everglades restoration projects. and we also need to get the u.s. house of representatives to pass the harmful algal bloom reauthorization bill, which was introduced by this senator. the senate passed it unanimously a year ago.

this bill would reauthorize funding for the federal task force that is studying the harmful algae blooms, like the one that i have been describing here. i hope every member of the florida delegation especially those that are in areas where water is allowing algae to bloom, that you will join this senator in calling on the speaker of the house to take up and pass this important bill in the house and we need to do it fast while all of this algae is blooming. and that would be before the house goes out in recess for their august break. time is critical. and, again, i want to show you

what this algae looks like. you can see these thick chunks on the surface of the water where it almost looks like a blue-green carpet. and when that algae dies, you can't believe the smell that comes off of it. it's time to act and it's time to act now. madam president i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

>> the senate and house back this week, the senate this afternoon will vote at 35u 30 on whether to limit debate on the nomination of mark jeremy bennett9 to be a circuit judge on the 9th circuit. president trump nominated him in february, that vote to advance the nomination at 5:30 eastern.

quorum call:

mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: tonight the president will announces his nominee for the supreme court justice of the united states. that announcement is because of justice kennedy's recent retirement. >> justice kennedy left an important legacy of more than three decades on the supreme court. i voted for his confirmation 30 years ago imrment to our -- commitment to our constitutional liberties. it is no surprise that some of his greatest opinions defended free speech and religious liberty. i hope that justice kennedy's successor carries forward this legacy. i'm optimistic that the person the president nominates tonight

will be highly qualified and committed to the rule of law. i'm optimistic because president trump already appointed one such supreme court justice, neil gorsuch. the president's selection process is the most transparent in history. he issued a list of potential supreme court nominees directly to the american people during his 2016 campaign. to my knowledge no other presidential candidate has ever done that. the list demonstrated the type of judges that he will appoint to the bench. the american people voted for president trump in part, because of that list of names and what it reflected and of his promise to nominate these types

of jurists. any of the 25 individuals on the president's list would be an excellent choice and worthy of the senate's serious consideration. but already we're seeing from liberal outside groups and some of the democratic leadership a desperate attempt to block the nominee, any nominee by whatever means necessary. democrat leaders have pledged to block anyone from the president's list without even knowing who that nominee is and regardless of his or her qualifications. now think about that a while. the president has a list of 25

names but some democratic leaders have already said that not one of them is acceptable. zeroed out 25 highly respected highly qualified individuals not even worthy of this body's consideration. that's an incredible statement by some of the leaders on the other side of the aisle. this preemptive attack on a yet to be named nominee is a preview of the obstacles and calls for needless delays that we are sure to see from some of my colleagues. i've already heard several weak arguments made in an attempt to delay the confirmation hearing but the democratic leaders have

shown their hand. the motive is to block any nominee from the president's list. whatever reasons for delay it's clear that their single motivating factor is blocking the nominees selected tonight whoever he or she is. the first delay tactic i heard was that the senate shouldn't confirm a nominee during a mid-term election. but the senate has never operated like this. justice kagan and justice breyer were confirmed in mid-year election years in addition to many justices who served before them. democratic leadership and outside groups are so desperate to block this nominee that they are willing to rewrite history

to do it. we have a long history of confirming justices nominated during a mid-term election year. we don't have a long history of confirming judges nominated during a presidential election year. it's been nearly 80 years since we've done that. former chairman joe biden announced in 1992 that the senate shouldn't confirm any justices during a presidential election year. senator schumer said something similar in 2007 the year before the presidential election. the biden-schumer rule pertains to only presidential elections not to mid-term election years. so it's important to let the american people decide who should choose a nominee for a supreme court vacancy. that's why i waited until after

the 2016 presidential election to hold hearings for a supreme court nominee. but the individual who selects nominees the president of the united states, is not on the ballot in mid-term elections. the rule simply doesn't apply during a mid-term election, and that's this year. another losing talking point is that we shouldn't confirm any nominee while ront mueller's -- robert mueller's investigation is ongoing and who knows when that's going to end. this argument, again is inconsistent with the historical precedent. look at what president clinton was involved in, an investigation of that president over whitewater at the same time

justice breyer was appointed to the supreme court at the time an independent counsel was doing that investigation. at the time his documents were under grand jury subpoena. what other constitutional powers do the proponents of this argument believe that the president should surrender simply because of an investigation. this is obstruction masquerading as silliness. what drives this preemptive obstruction, you might ask. it's liberal outside groups stated fair that the president's nominee will vote to invalidate the affordable care act or overturn roe v. wade. well the same five justice majority that preserved the affordable care act is still on

the court. justice kennedy voted to strike to down, replacing him with a like-minded justice would not change the outcome. and we hear the same thing about rowe roe v. wade every time there is a supreme court vacancy. it was a big deal when sandra day o'connor was appointed to the court 37 years ago. yet roe v. wade is still the law of the land. it's pretty clear justices have a way of surprising us. who could have predicted that justice scalia would strike down a ban on flag burning? it's a fool's error to find how a justice will rule on some

hypothetical future case. but this regular uproar about roe v. wade shows the difference between how many democrats and republicans view the courts. liberal outside groups and many democrats have a litmus test. they seem to be very results oriented and focusing on policy outcomes of judicial decisions. they expect, they even demand, their judges to rule in favor of their preferred policies. liberal outside groups and their allies simply want judges to be politicians hiding under their robes. that's why senate democrats were so blatant in changing senate rules so they could stack the d.c. court of appeals.

former leader harry reid made no bones of making sure there were enough d.c. circuit judges to protect obama administration policies on regulations. republicans, on the other hand, want judges who rule according to law and leave policy making to representatives where the constitution prefers and demands where it be. i don't want a judge to base on whether it is liberal or not. judges should look at the law no matter what their policy outcomes are. judge gorsuch recently said that judges wear robes not capes. i agree with that assessment. liberal outside groups and their

allies want judges who will decide cases with liberal policy results. republicans expect judges to leave their policy aside when deciding a case. that's the fundamental difference that will become crystal clear to the american people during this confirmation debate. the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing for the nominee in coming weeks exactly when i don't know and i should know at this point -- i shouldn't know at this point. i want to emphasize a few things though. one, it's inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee how he or she would rule on cases sometime in the near future or ten years from now. two, it's inappropriate to ask the nominee about his or her

personal views on the merits of supreme court precedence. the bottom line is that senators should not try to extract assurances from nominees on how they will decide particular cases in exchange for a confirmation vote because how do you know down the road, one year, two years, 15 years what the case might be at that particular time? justice ginsburg made it pretty simple for everybody. during her confirmation hearing in the early 1990's, she set the standard promising in her words, quote no hints no forecasts, no previews. she said this in a further long quote. it would be wrong for me to say

or to preview to this legislative chamber how i would cast my votes on questions the supreme court may be called upon to decide. were i to rehearse here what i would say and how i would reason on such questions i would act injudicially. this standard was reaffirmed by every supreme court nominee since then. so for the last 25 or 26 years the ginsberg rule has been what's followed by other people coming before the supreme court. justice kagan said this about roe v. wade following the ginsberg rule. quote, i do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of roe v. wade other than to say that it is

settled law entitled to presidential weight. the application of roe to future cases and even its continued validity are issues likely to come before the court in the future. just exactly following the ginsberg rule. so i expect this nominee announced tonight to likewise follow the ginsberg standard. i'll ask the nominee how he or she views the law and in -- in a judge's role on the bench. i won't presume how a nominee will rule on any case that might come before the court today tomorrow or ten years from now. i certainly won't be basing my vote on whether i think i'll agree with the majority of his

or her decisions. the press has reported that the president focused on six or seven potential nominees for this vacancy. each one is well qualified and would make an outstanding supreme court justice. the nominee will get a full and fair hearing. under my watch the senate judiciary committee will never be a rubber stamp. several recent nominees to lower courts learned that the hard way. and the process will be fair and will be transparent as much as i can make it. that has been my approach during my nearly 38 years in the senate and all of those 38 years on the senate judiciary committee and i will not change that. the american people must be confident that this senate has

fulfilled its constitutional duty of very independently investigating this nominee -- vetting this nominee before he confirm a justice to a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land. i eagerly await the president's announcement this evening. and i look forward from hearing from the nominee when he or she appears before the senate judiciary committee. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i have been consistently voting -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: thank you. mr. president, i have been consistently voting against cloture motions to proceed to

debate on judicial nominations because the process through which we are considering these nominations is deeply broken. today i will again be voting no on cloture even though the nominee we are voting on to fill a vacancy on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit is mark bennett from hawaii. i support mark bennett's nomination spoke on his behalf in a senate judiciary committee hearing and when debate time ends, i will vote for his confirmation. mark is recognized as one of the best-qualified lawyers in the state of hawaii. he has served as a federal prosecutor our state's attorney general, and in private practice. he has experience in trial and appellate work, on civil and criminal matters, at the state and federal levels. he understands legislating and

has served in the executive branch. he has received high ratings from the american bar association and the hawaii state bar association he is well-respected and has been honored multiple times by his colleagues. i have every confidence that mark will put his skilled and experience to good use on the bench as a fair and impartial judge, beholden to nothing but the law and the constitution. however, agency has been my -- as has been my practice, i will vote no on cloture on mark's nomination i vote this way to call attention to my disagreement and deep concern over how the senate judiciary committee is conducting its judicial nomination hearings. the senate has a constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees, and i take this obligation very seriously.

the american people depend on the senate to fully consider and vet each judicial nominee. throughout the course of their lifetime appointments, these judges will issue rulings and opinions that touch each of our lives. the process of nominating, considering, and confirming judges should be a deliberate one. its purpose should not to be confirm as many judges as quickly as possible. senators should be able to provide input on who should sit on the federal bench. senators should have an adequate opportunity to hear from third-party experts about the records and qualifications of each nominee. and senators should have enough time to question and examine a nominee during the confirmation hearing. but over the past year and a half we've seen a breakdown in the way this process should work. the president has essentially outsourced the judicial selection process to two

organizations with strong ideologically driven agendas the federalist society and the heritage foundation. these nominees are chosen without the consent of their home state senators, as has been the practice through what is known as the blue-slip process. and by ignoring the traditional blue-slip process the president and his allies in congress are rendering the senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent increasingly meaningless. the white house and the chairman of the judiciary committee have also undermined the independent processes through which the american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary evaluates whether a nominee is qualified for the job. ignoring this traditional process has resulted in the nomination and confirmation of a number of deeply unqualified judges. some of these nominees have been unable to answer basic questions

about judicial procedure or the law during their confirmation hearings. others lack the kind of experience one would want in a person who will have a lifetime appointment to the federal court. under this administration, we've also seen rushed consideration of many nominees for the federal circuit courts. judges who serve on our circuit courts are only one step away from the supreme court and deserve to be scrutinized closely in the judiciary committee. over the last year and a half, however, the judiciary committee overruled the objections of the minority to hold an unprecedented six -- six -- nomination hearings with more than one circuit judge nominee considered simultaneously on one panel. this means that members of the judiciary committee have only five minutes in total to ask questions of not just one but two circuit court nominees, including the time it takes for

them to answer our questions. this is scarcely enough time to vet these nominees, many of whom are highly controversial and deserve maximum security -- scrutiny. the american people deserve much more as we consider lifetime appointments to the federal bench. until we return to a normal process through which we consider lifetime appointments to the federal bench, i will continue to oppose cloture on each of these president's judicial nominations and encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. mr. president, i yield the floor.

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 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of mark jeremy bennett of hawaii to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of mark jeremy bennett of hawaii to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are have all senators vote ?d any senator wishing to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 72. the nays are 25. the motion is agreed to.

brown mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not brown thank you. early why this month exercises to ensure the largest banks can withstand economic shocks and won't need another taxpayer bailout in the event of a crisis. mr. brown: these stress tests were not in effect a decade ago before the last crisis and likely would have prevented or made much softer the economic landing that we had. what happened with these tests illustrates exactly what happened with these annual stress tests that just came out illustrates exactly what's wrong

with washington, what's wrong with this congress, and what's wrong with wall street. the fed allowed the seven largest banks to redirect $96 billion, that's 96,000 million $96 billion that would be used to pay workers or reduce fees for consumers or to protect taxpayers from bailouts. instead it allowed the seven largest banks to plow that money into share buybacks and difference derchedzs to reward -- dividends to reward wealthy executives and generally wealthy investors. two bank, goldman sachs morgan stanley. two banks had capital below the required amounts. that's right. those banks failed the test but got passing grades anyway. the federal called them up, let them haggle over the test results and allowed them to proceed with buybacks and dividends that fundamentally drained their required capital. and what classroom in america would a teacher grade a paper%,

preliminary give it an "f," then negotiate with a student over test results and say okay, you pass? but the stakes are higher than one midterm x we're talking about the biggest basing in the company. we're talking about whether they send money to the wealthiest invests or instead have enough skin in the game to protect taxpayers? why are these share buybacks such a problem? they juice stock prices but do little to increase language-term growth in companies and do very little to reward the workers that make a company success possible. during the last crisis, mr. president, we saw big banks send money out the door with buybacks and dividends just months before they imploded and cost taxpayers billions. watchdogs in the bush administration had the tools to intervene sooner but instead they courted wall street at the expense of the rest of the country. some of the regulators today who

are in the treasury department in the bush white house in the fed in those days and didn't see the crisis coming turned their backs and said, it's okay to allow these dividends understand allow these -- and allow these buybacks. the set ofen largest banks in the country increased their stock difficulties paid to investors by 24% compared to last year. the banks increase their repurchases by a stunning 63%. what teller, what salesperson what branch bank manager in lorain ohio or miamisburg, ohio what seller got a raise like that in the last year? mr. president, my colleagues don't think much about this, but the average teller in america makes $12.50 an hour. bank executives are making $5 million, $10 million $20 million, got buy if backs

juicing their compensation as their stock holdings go up and up and yet the average teller makes $12 an hour. wells fargo increased its stack buybooks. the money spent on the one hand buybacks is 314 times what it would cost the bank to boost employee wages to $is a an hour. remember what i said. $12.50 an hour the average teller makes in this country. c.e.o. tim shown got a 36% raise last year even in the wake of scandal after scandal at wells fargo. i found that ads that you see all over the place watching a cleveland indians game on tv sitting in my living room in cleveland, i've seen them in washington all over. how wells fargo is going to learn from its past mistakes. they were once a great company. they failed. now they'll be a great company again. but they gave their c.e.o. who clearly has had some serious issues at that bank a 36% raise.

so we have wall street again -- tellers $12.50 an hour. we have wall street banks rewarding themselves rather than others and draining the capital that should be their safeguard against taxpayer bailouts. i hear my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will never allow a bailout again. well we're doing things that will set us up to do that because we're moving away from the reforms we made. the problem is getting worse. the fed wants to make the test even easier next, weakening the key constraint that caused goldman sachs and morgan stanley to fail this year or would have caused this emto fail if they hadn't -- caused this emto fail if they hadn't talked their way out of it. federal reserve vice chair ran cal quarrels has also floated giving more reway to banks to comment on the tests before they're administered. i like vice chairman quarles. i sat across the table from him for two or three hours probably

total over his time there. and i assume i will get to know him better as we talk on these issues. but he was in the bush administration as the crisis built and built when the economy was about to implode. he said things were rosy. we are trusting him? he's in charge -- he's the vice chair of supervision. we're entrusting him and others at the fed to say that it's okay it's okay to give leeway to bankers to comment on the tests before they're administered. it's like letting students help write the exam. we wouldn't do that anywhere else but we do it with banks who risk the economy with their instability. and they're even considering mr. president, dropping the qualitative portion of the stress test altogether. that's the part of the test that exams banks' risk-management processes, data systems and the fitness, the fitness of its very well-paid board of directors. i'm not sure of the precise number but boards of directors in the seven large etches banks

i believe all of them make at least $200,000 a year. i know they average slug more than that. for part-time jobs, important jobs they also have other jobs most of them, but important jobs but jobs that -- where they owe son of seem to turn their head at these problems. banks like hsbc, rb system, all foreign-owned banks and citigroup, an american bank, all have failed in qualitative grounds before. but rather than taking that as evidence that these banks need to shape up, they're considering scrapping this critical part of the exam. the dodd-frank roll back bill this congress just passed will also makes things worse next year. right now the fed is considering how to replace existing stress tests for banks with between $1 coo billion and $250 billion in assets to make them easier on the banks and less frequent. easier on the banks and less frequent. and rather than having an annual

company-run stress test for the largest banks those are more than $250 billion in assets, the tests now because of the new law that bank lobbyists and president trump wanted, the tests will # let's see. now, we have very profitable banks, years -- banks that we

pay -- that the taxpayers bailed out. we have very profitable banks in this country. congress in the last year gave these banks huge tax cuts. congress passed a deregulation bill that these banks demanded. congress -- we saw an article in the paper recently that wall street is retooling their whole lobbyist network in washington because they didn't get quite enough on the banking deregulation bill. they thought it did too much -- they thought it did a lot for the community and mid-sized banks but not enough for the big guys. they're retootooling their lobbyist operation so they can do better. you have a vice chair of supervision who clearly favors wall street in the rules that he's already suggested. boy, mr. president it's good to be a bank. it's great to be a banker in america, and in 2018. it's great to be a banker in

trump's america.

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

mr. tillis: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all postcloture time on the bennet nomination be considered expired at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow and the senate immediately vote on many nomination. if confirmed the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday july 10. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders to be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. i further ask that following

leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the bennett nomination. i ask the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. tomorrow to allow for the weekly conference meetings. and finally i ask that all time during adjournment leader remarks, morning business, and recess count postcloture on the bennett nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. tillis: if there is no further business before the senate mr. president i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the >> as always live coverage of the senate when it returns here on c-span 2.

tonight on the communicators stanford professor discusses his book experience on demand about virtual reality technology and its potential for the future. >> when vr is done well you know the front of your brain can be saying this is not real but the back of your brain, that part that's in charge of keeping you alive is terrified. and whenever we bring, whether it's children on a school field trip or the ceo of a fortune 10 company, that's the first thing we do. we want to establish that vr field's real because if i show you vr field's real and you are unwilling to take a step on that plank as most of the people that come to the lab are, once i've sold you on this idea that vr is so real that you're not even willing to step on a fake plank, then we can have a real conversation can you use vr to change attitudes about racism about climate change about these really hard topics that you have to experience to really understand. >> watch the communicators

tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. president donald trump will announce his nominee for the supreme court, filling the vacancy left by retiring justice anthony kennedy. watch the announcement live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. on thursday the fbi's peter strzok former senior official for the counterintelligence division will testify about fbi and doj actions surrounding the 2016 presidential election and the clinton e-mail investigation. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, on-line at c-span.org and with the free c-span radio app. president trump is just a few hours away from announcing his choice to replace retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy. throughout the day, we heard several senators talk about the

supreme court vacancy and the up coming process for getting a nominee confirmed. >> a disaster for women, totally unacceptable these are just a few of the attacks the far left special interest groups hurled at a federal circuit court judge whom a republican president nominated to the supreme court. the name of the federal judge? anthony kennedy. after president reagan nominated then judge kennedy to the court, in 1987 these far left special interest groups impinged his character. they cooked up apocalypse warnings about all the terrible things terrible things that would happen to americans if he

were confirmed to the court. of course the american people didn't buy it and a majority of senators saw through the hyperbole and hysteria and confirmed that qualified nominee. and believe it or not, mr. president, the sky didn't fall. it didn't fall. but decades later, our democratic colleagues still haven't tired of crying wolf whenever a republican president nominates anyone anyone to the supreme court. we've seen the same movie time after time after time. less than three years after justice kennedy's confirmation president bush nominated david suitor to the supreme court. guess what left wing pressure groups said about david suitor right after president bush elected him? that's right.

the very same things you are hearing today. the same things you've heard from these same corners about every supreme court nominee named by a republican president. one organization proclaimed that justice suitor might, quote, undo the advances made by women, minorities dissenters and other disadvantaged groups. that was about justice suitor. and back in 1975 they assailed the nomination of john paul stevens. they said he lacked impartiality and opposed women's rights. that's what they said about john paul stevens. so these far left groups have been at these same scare tactics, mr. president, for over 40 years. the consistency is really quite amazing. decade after decade nominee

after nominee, the far left script hardly changes at all. anyone everyone a republican president nominates to the supreme court is some kind of threat to the republic according to the hysterical press releases that inevitably follow. no matter their qualifications no matter their record no matter their reputation. it's the same hyperbole, the same accusations, the same old story. tonight president trump will announce his nominee to fill the current supreme court vacancy. we don't know who he will name but we already know exactly what unfair tactics the nominee will face. they won't be new, and they won't be warranted. we can expect to hear how they will destroy equal rights or

demolish american healthcare or ruin our country in some other fictional way. justice kennedy's resignation letter had barely arrived in the president's hands before several of our democratic colleagues began declaring their blanket opposition to anyone and all, anyone that the president might name. one democratic senator stated she would resist any attempt to confirm any nominee this year quote, it doesn't matter who he's putting forward. doesn't matter who. earlier today, just today, another democratic senator issued a press release declaring preemptively that he plans to oppose whomever the president nominates tonight, no matter what they are. -- no matter who they are. another of our democratic colleagues offered this assessment we're looking at the destruction of the constitution

of the united states as far as i can tell. it's hard to keep a straight face when you hear stuff like that. there's not even a nominee yet. justice kennedy just announced his retirement and they are talking about the destruction of the constitution? please. give the american people some credit. this far left rhetoric comes out every single time. but the apocalypse never comes. americans see beyond this far left mongering. this kind of fear mongering they've tried over and over again for 40 years. senators should do the same. we should evaluate this president's nominee fairly based on his or her

qualifications. and we should treat the process with the respect and dignity that it deserves. the judiciary committee under the able leadership of senator grassley will hold hearings and then the nomination will come to the full senate for our consideration. one more round of 40-year-old scare tactics will not stop us from doing the right thing. >> now, mr. president, as everyone knows, later tonight, president trump will announce his nomination for the up coming vacancy on the supreme court. whoever fills justice kennedy's seat will join an otherwise evenly divided court and immediately obtain the ability to affect the laws of the united states and the rights of its citizens for generations to come. enormously important issues hang in the balance, the right of

workers to organize the influence of dark money in our politics the right of americans to marry whom they love the right to vote. two issues of similar and profound consequence are the fate of the affordable healthcare and a woman's freedom to make the most sensitive medical decisions about her body. these two rights affordable healthcare and a woman's freedom to make sensitive healthcare decisions hang in the balance with this nominee. the views of president trump's next court nominee could very well determine whether the senate approves or rejects this nomination. now, president trump has already made up his mind. president trump has repeatedly said that he believes roe was wrongly decided. he has promised in his own words

to nominate only pro-life judges whose selection will result in the automatic overturning of roe v. wade. those are his words. pro-life judges, automatic. he also said that chief justice roberts has been an absolute disaster his words, for voting to uphold the healthcare law and said his judicial appointments will quote, do the right thing, unlike bush's appointee john roberts on obama care unquote. it is near impossible to imagine that president trump would select a nominee who isn't hostile to our healthcare law and healthcare for millions and millions and millions of americans, who isn't hostile to a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare decisions. ::