senators are expect today recess for their weekly party lunches. vice-president mike pence will be attending the republican meeting and we'll try that grab that if we can. and the president's nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. he's meeting with the vice-president and majority leader mitch mcconnell. now to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. ain: l. holy father, thank you for the showers of blessings you bestow upon us each day. help us to open our hands to your generosity, expressing our gratitude in loving obedience. lord, inspire our lawmakers to live

for you, striving to please you in their every endeavor. may they not forget that they belong to you, the great shepherd of their destinies. go before them that they may follow in your steps. go behind them to steer them when they stray. and go beside them so that they will experience the strength and joy that come from your abiding presence. we pray in your marvelous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance 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 10, 2018, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable cindy-hyde-smith, a senator from the state of mississippi, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, presidet pro tempore.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: president trump has made a superb selection to serve as associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. judge brett kavanaugh of the d.c. circuit. judge kavanaugh poe owe sess an -- possesses an impressive resume, an outstanding legal mind, and an exemplary judicial temperament. he served 12 years on the nation's most consequential circuit court. during that tenure he's proven to be one of the most thoughtful jurists in our country. and importantly, that record demonstrates an understanding of

a judge's proper role in our constitutional republic. judge kavanaugh understands that in the united states of america, judges are not -- not -- unelected super legislators whom we select for their personal views or policy preferences. a judge's duty is to interpret the plain meaning of our laws and our constitution according to how they are written. judges need to be unbiased. they need to treat all parties fairly. they need to approach every case with open ears and an open mind. judges' decisions must turn on the facts of each case and be based on the text that it is their job to interpret. by all accounts, judge kavanaugh is precisely that kind of judge. his resume, to put it simply, is topnotch. a bachelor's degree from yale with honors.

a law degree also from yale where he was a member of the law review, a lecturing position at harvard law school to which he was appointed, by the way, by then-dean and now justice elena kagan. after graduating, he quickly built a reputation as a star law clerk, including on the supreme court for justice kennedy. as an energetic and talented public servant and as one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006 the senate confirmed him to the d.c. circuit. he's compiled an extensive record on the federal bench. he published more than 300 opinions and earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. so, madam president, judge kavanaugh has built a long and distinguished record. he paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws

as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy, to pick favorites, or craft novel legislation from the bench. now some of our colleagues and others on the left seem to see the role of judges very differently. president obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for president. he explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbored particular empathy for certain parties in certain cases. well, that's great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes. not so great if you are the other guy. it doesn't align with our nation's historical understanding of the rule of law or the role that federal courts play in our democracy. so i respectfully submit that then and now some of our democratic colleagues seem to me, madam president, to be a

little confused. a little confused. they seem to be confusing the nature of a political office with the nature of a judicial office. this would explain why some of our colleagues sound eager to try and turn judicial confirmations into something like political elections. the grid -- to grill judge kavanaugh on policy outcomes like voters rightly grill all of us when we run for our seats here in the senate. some democratic senators have telegraphed they'll heed the demands of the far left interest groups and try to force judge kavanaugh to commit under oath to decisions he might make on issues in hypothetical cases. forget that the cases don't even exist yet. forget the total absence of any facts, legal arguments, or

research. forget how inappropriate and undesirable it would be for a judge to predetermine a ruling before either side's lawyers uttered a single word. so, madam president, that's simply not how this process has ever worked or ever could work. i'm not the one saying this. here's what a prior supreme court nominee said on this very subject. quote, a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. end quote. those are the words of another then-d.c. circuit court judge and current supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. during her senate confirmation

to the supreme court in 1993. so look, i think we all should remember that standard. we'll do well to remember we're evaluating a judge, not debating ad candidate for political office. even more regrettably, a number of our democratic colleagues could not even wait until the president's announcement last night before launching attacks on his nominee. this was in some cases quite literally a fill-in-the-blank opposition. they wrote statements of opposition only to fill in the name later. sadly, this is not a new approach for the far-left special interest groups. just like last year, justice gorsuch met with partisan

opposition before the ink was even dry on his nomination. look, i'm sorry to say that judge kavanaugh seems to have already broken that record because senate democrats were on record opposing him before he had even been named. just fill in the name. whoever it is we're against. before the ink was even dry on justice kennedy's resignation. now, madam president, this is a telltale sign that some of our colleagues are throwing thoughtful independent judgment out the window and are outsourcing their thinking on this matter to far-left special interest groups. there's been a lot of talk about outsourcing here. if anybody's outsourcing, it's the democrats outsourcing what they say to these outside groups that are demanding opposition to anyone at all costs, no matter who it is. look, as i discussed on the floor yesterday, we know exactly

what the partisan playbook looks like. it's been hauled out for most everyone a republican president has nominated to the supreme court for the last 40 years. 40 years. it's like clockwork. so i fully anticipate we'll hear all kinds of fantastic stories about the pain and suffering that this perfectly qualified, widely respected judge will somehow unleash on america if we confirm him to the court. that kind of cheap political fearmongering insults the intelligence of the american people. because americans understand the difference between a political office and a judicial office. they understand the difference between the policymakers who throw pitches and the judges who call balls and strikes. so i look forward to the senate's fair consideration of

this most impressive nomination. i look forward to meeting with judge kavanaugh later this morning, to hearing his testimony in committee, and to voting on his confirmation right here on the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will receive a message from the president of the united states. the house reading clerk: message from the president of the united states. the house reading clerk: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the united states senate nominations in writing. the presiding officer: the message will be received and appropriately referred. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 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. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now, madam president, last night, president trump selected brett kavanaugh as his nominee for the upcoming vacancy on the supreme court. in selecting judge kavanaugh, president trump did exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail -- nominate someone who will overturn women's reproductive rights and strike down health care protections for millions of americans. including those with preexisting conditions. he's put at risk civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights, lgbtq rights. how do we know?

because president trump repeatedly promised to nominate justices who will overturn roe v. wade and who will undermine our health care laws. this didn't come out of a clear blue. president trump promised it. here's what he said. he would only pick, quote, pro-life judges who would, quote, automatically reverse roe v. wade. president trump actually went so far as to say that women should be punished for their health care choices. president trump also said, quote, his judicial appointments would do the right thing, unlike justice roberts on health care. that is president trump's litmus test, and it couldn't be clearer, and during the campaign, president trump commissioned a list of 25 people who would meet the litmus test. they were vetted and approved by

two organizations that represent the hard right -- the federalist society led by a man named leonard leo whose goal in life has been to overturn roe v. wade. and the heritage foundation whose goal is to strike down the health care law because they don't want the government to help people out when they have preexisting conditions or other health care needs. here's what edward wayland, a prominent conservative activist, said about leonard leo, the man who put together the list that trump promised to choose from. quote -- here's what he said about lee owe. 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. if anyone believes that judge kavanaugh or anyone else on the list would uphold roe v. wade,

then i have a bridge to sell them. leonard leo's goal in life is to repeal roe. he comes up with the list. do you think he put any slack ardz, -- slackards, in his opinion, on that list? no. judge kavanaugh got the nomination, not because he will an impartial judge on behalf of all americans, but because he passed president trump's litmus tests -- repeal women's freedom or their reproductive rights, repeal americans' health care, including protection of preexisting conditions. if judge kavanaugh was to be confirmed, women's reproductive rights would be in the hands of five men on the supreme court. that's not what the women or the men of america want. judge kavanaugh's own writings make clear that he would rule against reproductive rights and freedoms and that he would

welcome challenges to the constitutionality of the affordable care act, of our health care act. judge kavanaugh has argued that the supreme court should question the constitutionality of the affordable care act. he openly criticized the supreme court when they upheld the law. he's no neutral arbiter. he has already made up his mind, and he wouldn't have been approved by the heritage foundation in they weren't certain that he would repeal the a.c.a. he wouldn't have been approved by the federalist society if leonard leo wasn't certain that he would repeal roe v. wade. judge kavanaugh has argued that the trump administration could keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining constitutionally protected health care, and he has argued that employers should be able to deny their employees

access to affordable contraceptive coverage. if judge kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rights, imagine what he feels about a woman's right to choose. and i would make one other point about judge kavanaugh. he's a deeply, deeply conservative justice, way out of the mainstream. he has written troubling decisions rejecting something 90% of americans want, commonsense gun laws. he has undone environmental protections. he's challenged them. and our clean air and clean water acts would be at risk. he would make it far more difficult for regulations to exist to enforce those laws. and here's the most amazing thing. he has gone so far as to say that a president doesn't need to follow the law if he, quote, deems it unconstitutional.

folks, here we have a president, president trump, who cares less about rule of law, less about the restraints that every other president has felt, put in place by the constitution and the norms that have blessed this great country for 200 years, and we're going to put on the bench someone who says if this president, president trump deems some law unconstitutional, he doesn't have to follow it? how many americans think that the president would be judicious and limited in doing that? it's not the president i've seen over the last year and a half. oh, no. an analysis by professor epstein of the washington university of st. louis found that judge kavanaugh would be the second

most conservative judge on the court, to the right of judge gorsuch and second only to judge thomas. this is the most conservative court we've had in 80, 90 years, since the 1930's at the very minimum. to say to -- to those who say that president trump made a moderate selection from the judicial mainstream in the form of judge kavanaugh, think again and look at his record. he is a deeply conservative justice and his judicial philosophy appears to spring from his history. judge kavanaugh was embedded of the partisan fights of the past few decades, the notorious star report, the florida recount, president bush's secrecy and privilege claims once in office and ideological judicial nomination fights throughout the bush era. the hard right has had a goal. they can't achieve their

hard-right philosophy through the two elected branches of government, try as they might. the congress, the president, but if they get control of the one nonelective branch, the judiciary, they can turn the clock back in america decades, maybe centuries. that's been their goal, and judge kavanaugh, when he worked in the white house helped them achieve that goal. judge kavanaugh's background as a partisan political operative seems exactly like the kind of man president trump would want on the supreme court if legal issues from the mueller probe arise, deferential to a fault to executive authority and with a

long track record of partisan politics. judge kavanaugh's long track record of partisan politics comes with a long paper trail. the senate must now be able to have access and time to adequately review all documents, e-mails, other paperwork associated with judge kavanaugh before the process moves forward. judge kavanaugh's papers may be critical to helping the american people understand the kind of jurist that judge kavanaugh would be on the supreme court. and if that makes us take a little more time, so be it. this is one -- as the president himself has said, this is one of the most consequential nominations we have had in a generation. to get the full record before any of us vote, absolutely necessary, important, essential, and fair.

judge kavanaugh's papers may give the senate the best and only chance of understanding judge kavanaugh's personal views because no doubt judge kavanaugh will be schooled as his most recent predecessors to reveal as little as possible about his philosophies and personal views in the confirmation hearing. no doubt he will employ practiced evasion that has become a tradition of the nomination process. i will respect precedent. i will follow settled law and strive to uphold stare decisis. gee, senator, i can't comment lest i bias myself on a future case. we have seen what happened that now justice roberts, justice gorsuch and judge alito said. they turned precedence to achieve their political goals. probably the worst, citizens

united where chief justice roberts undid close to a century of tradition and allowed wealthy people to send millions of dollars undisclosed into our politics, making the swamp so much worse. and most recently justice gorsuch, justice roberts, and the rest, dramatically overturning precedent in the janus case on a whim as the dissent noted. they just pulled a theory out of the hat. a first amendment ruling that the first amendment prohibited unions from organizing. my oh, my.

how can anyone believe that they will stick -- that judge kavanaugh will stick to precedent when justice roberts, justice gorsuch, and justice alito ignore precedent and make their own political rulings regularly? so we need to review the record. judge kavanaugh's written history where the best clues of his jurisprudence may lie. it's no less than the standard my republican colleagues demanded of then-judge kagan during her confirmation process. they asked for her entire records, 170,000 documents were sent here. we need those documents now more than ever because this new justice will be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation for so long.

the nomination could alter the balance of the court in favor of powerful special interests against working families for a generation. the hard-right heritage business foundation wants only nominees that will side with the big boys, against the average person, and in judge kavanaugh they've gotten someone who would do just that. we cannot let it happen. if the senate blocks this nomination, it will lead to a more independent, moderate selection that both parties could support. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: thank you, madam president. i enjoyed listening to the

minority leader and disagree with almost everything he said. but i do believe he is one of the great senators here and i care for him. he has a job to do, i suppose, and it seems strange that every time a supreme court nominee comes from the republicans, there's every reason in the world not to confirm that nominee in the eyes of the current democrats. even without the first day of hearings we're getting that type of a situation. it's hard to believe. it's really hard to believe. madam president, i rise today in strong support of the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice to the supreme court. i've known brett for quite a while. he's a decent, honest, a good family man. he's everything you'd want on

the bench. s fair, he's considerate, knowledgeable, intelligent, he understands the law, and when he doesn't understand the law, he will search it until he does. president trump has made an outstanding choice. he kept his commitment to the american people. he accepted a nominee with deep experience in the law and proper understanding of the role of a judge under our constitution. i first met brett kavanaugh 14 years ago when he came before the judiciary committee for his first confirmation hearing to the d.c. circuit. i was the chair of the judiciary committee at that time. i was impressed by brett's sterling credentials at that time, his broad knowledge of the law, and his demeanor. at only 39 years of age he knew more about the law than most lawyers who practiced a lifetime.

i think anybody who is fair would acknowledge that. brett was confirmed to the d.c. circuit in 2006 following years of obstruction by senate democrats. i was pleased and proud to support brett's nomination to the d.c. circuit, and i followed his work on that court the last dozen years with great interest. he spent a dozen years on that court, the second greatest court in our country without criticism, by the way, or at least i should say without fair criticism. he's been a true intellectual leader, offering landmark opinions on the separation of powers, administrative laws, national security. it's no overstatement to say that judge kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and most influential judges in the entire country. the supreme court has adopted his positions -- or the

positions and his opinions no less than 11 times, the supreme court has. he has authored multiple dissents that ultimately prevailed in the supreme court. that ought to be complimented, not condemned. he has taught courses at harvard, yale, and georgetown. i would have preferred if he had taught some courses at brigham university and the university of utah, but i guess that was too far west, but you can't knock harvard, yale, and georgetown. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: it bears to mention that liberal and conservative justices alike have hired his former clerks which address --

chosen the respect he has across the ideological spectrum. truly, madam president, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the supreme court than brett kavanaugh, and the funny thing is most people know that, including my friends on the other side. that's one reason they are afraid to have him on the court. i speak from experience on this. i'm the former chairman of the judiciary committee. i participated in the confirmation of more federal judges than any senator in our nation's history. more than half of all federal judges ever confirmed. i've participated in the last 14 supreme court confirmation battles, including the confirmations of all current members of the court. i know a good nominee when i see one. and brett kavanaugh is not just a good nominee, brett kavanaugh

is an exceptional nominee, and any fair person has to admit it. now, madam president, it's been a little over a year since we last considered a nominee to the supreme court. that nominee was neil gorsuch. and i have to say president trump hit a home run with justice gorsuch. i came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of justice gorsuch's nomination because i knew neil gorsuch and i knew what kind of a judge he would be. i knew he would interpret the constitution according its original meaning, not according to the pet theories of liberal law professors or liberal activists. i knew he would give effect to the plain text of statutes rather than running around to find bits and pieces of legislative history to support his preferred view. and i knew he would hold the administration -- the

administrative state to task and help check the unrestrained growth of the unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government. justice gorsuch has done all that, and more. he has shown himself to be an independent thinker who faithfully applies the text of the constitution and the text of statutes. he's shown that is perfectly be comfortable every -- comfortable disagreeing with the administration when the administrations a wrongheaded argument. most of all he has shown deeply that under our constitution political power lies with the people and their elected representatives, not nine justices in washington, d.c. madam president, in all the ways neil gorsuch has been a home run, brett kavanaugh will be one

too. in his dozen years on the d.c. circuit judge kavanaugh has been an independent fair-minded jurist who is deeply committed to the constitution and the rule of law. he has made his mark, especially in cases involving the separation of powers and agency decision making. he is serious about ensuring that the branches of government stay within their proper spheres and that agency officials have sufficient political accountability. he has also shown a commitment to our first and second amendment freedoms. in all this, he has been a true intellectual leader. like justice gorsuch, judge kavanaugh has demonstrated that he understands that in our system of government -- in our system of government, judges interpret the law. they don't make laws. they interpret them.

policy making is for the other branches of government. in a rational world, judge kavanaugh's confirmation would be confirmed by the senate overwhelmingly. i don't think there's any question about that. his qualifications are unquestioned. his integrity is beyond reproach. he is respected throughout the country as one of the most, one of our nation's leading jurists. sadly, however, we don't live sometimes in a rational world, at least not when it comes to the supreme court. we saw this last year. my democratic colleagues attacked justice gorsuch as unfit and unqualified. they said he had not cited often enough the right sort of causes, that he would not do enough to protect the, quote, little guy,

unquote, when deciding cases. democrats' objection at root was that they did not think that neil gorsuch would rule the way they wanted. they did not think that he would reach liberal enough outcomes. of course they couldn't say that directly as they would have given the whole game away and shown that their opposition was really just about politics. which is exactly what it was. so they latched on to a couple of cases, blew them entirely out of proportion, and misrepresented what then judge gorsuch had actually said. they asked him questions about cases likely to come before the supreme court that he nor any other nominee could answer

without violating the cannons of judicial ethics. he could not answer without violating the canons of judicial ethics. yet they asked these questions any way. i guess they expected an answer but no self-respecting nominee would have given an answer. they claimed he would have been a rubber stamp for the administration when there was nothing in his record at all to suggest he had been a rubber stamp for anything. my democratic colleagues cannot with a straight face oppose neil gorsuch. or neil gorsuch's nomination on the merits, and so they kicked up a cloud of half-truths and misrepresentations and used those to justify their opposition. fortunately the majority of my colleagues saw these desperate

tactics for what they were. complete baloney, and that's putting it mildly. now we're about to replay the same game, madam president. in the coming weeks my democratic colleagues are going to throw everything they have at judge kavanaugh. we're going to see judge kavanaugh's opponents twist his words, misrepresent his opinions, and do everything they can to make him into some sort of a monster, judicial monster. they will call him a rubber stamp for the rich and powerful and warn that his confirmation will mean the end of liberty and civil rights. that's trash talk, but that's what we're used to around here when they're afraid of the nominations that come from the republican side. there's no reason to be afraid.

these are people who are going to abide by the law, live in accordance of the law and decide cases the way the law demands and dictates. now this is the same playbook we've seen before. it's the same playbook we saw last year with neil gorsuch. it's the same playbook we would have seen no matter who the president nominated, because the opposition will not be about judge kavanaugh's credentials or his qualifications. it will be about politics, straight and simple. my democratic colleagues want a justice who will reach the outcomes they want, who will use the constitution to make policy. judge kavanaugh is not that kind of a judge. he interprets the constitution as written. he interprets our laws as written. he follows the separation of

powers and leaves policy making to the political branches. brett kavanaugh is one of the most respected judges in our country, for good reason, because he's a real judge. he has been an intellectual leader on one of our nation's most important courts for over a decade. he has heard thousands of cases and issued hundreds of opinions. he is a brilliant thinker, a powerful writer, and i might add as somebody who knows him well, a kind and humble man. i cannot think of a better person to fill justice kennedy's seat on the supreme court than his former clerk, because justice kennedy is a kind and humble man. and he's excited about having this nominee take his place. madam president, after all the

kicking and screaming last year, after all the obfuscations and misrepresentations, we confirmed neil gorsuch to the supreme court. we did so because he was unquestionably qualified and because he had demonstrated a firm understanding of the judge's proper role under the constitution. like neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh is unquestionably qualified. like neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh has shown a commitment to the constitution and to the principle that judges are to interpret the law, not make it up. and like neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh will be confirmed. i have confidence in my colleagues that he will be confirmed. he is a good man.

i know him personally. i've known him for a long time. he's a good man. he's a brilliant man and a be man whose nomination i'm honored to support. i intend to do everything in my power, madam president, to see judge kavanaugh confirmed to the supreme court. i cannot be more pleased that one of my final acts here in the united states senate will be to help shepherd through one last nominee to our nation's highest court. i cannot be more pleased that that nominee is judge brett kavanaugh. i know judge kavanaugh. i know what a great justice he'll make. i know that he'll be fair. i know that he'll live in

accordance with the laws. i also know he has courage and conviction, and he'll do what justices have to do, and that is interpret the constitution and our statutes in this country in ways that will please the vast majority of all americans. that's about all we can ask for. i know he'll do that because i know the man. i know his family. i know his parents. all i can say is i'm really pleased that our president has decided to nominate him as a justice on the united states supreme court. and i would caution my colleagues to pay attention to his record because you can't keep voting against people just because politically they're not on your team. i think you can if they're not qualified. but he's qualified. i think you can if they're not

willing to abide by the law as written. but he is and has proven that. i could go on and on. all i can say is that this is a good nominee. i hope all of my colleagues will support him. i hope my friends on the democratic side will do the right thing here. the right thing here would help to propel the confirmation process along. who knows who's going to be the next president. it could be a democrat, and i would hope that that kind of an example would be an example to republicans, that if they're in the minority, do what is right. make your case. and don't slander people or libel them. and certainly don't stop decent, honorable candidates from these positions on the federal bench. i wish brett kavanaugh well, as i believe he'll make a really

great justice on the court. i think he'll be the type of a justice who will make everybody proud, even those with whom he disagrees. he's a decent man. he's an honorable man. he's a good family man. he's brilliant. he's exactly like the person the founding fathers would like to have on the bench, the supreme court bench. i believe that if we give him a chance, he'll do a very, very good job. he's not going to always please me, not going to always please the republicans. he'll do what is right. i hope my colleagues on the other side understand that and will not make this another cause celebre. be that as it may, we're going to push in as hard as we can, and hopefully he will become our next justice on the united states supreme court.

with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, last night the president of the united states announced that brett kavanaugh was his choice -- is his choice to fill the vacancy on the united states

supreme court left by the impending retirement of justice anthony kennedy. i was glad to have the occasion to join the president and others at the white house last night, and i could not be more pleased with the president's choice. now the president has performed his duty under the constitution that now falls to us to do our duty under the appointments clause to the united states constitution, the president shall appoint, subject to the advice and consent of the senate, members of the supreme court, among other officials. so the president has done his job, and now it falls to the united states senate to do our job under the constitution of the united states. we all have learned a little bit more about the nominee in just the few hours since his

nomination. of course we know he's a judge on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, but -- what some have called the second highest court in the land. by that, they mean that because it sits in the district of columbia, many cases, important cases involving the united states government go up through that court as opposed to courts in texas or indiana or other places around the country. for more than ten years, he has served in that capacity. we know he's had a distinguished academic and legal career. graduating from an elite law school like yale and clerking for justice kennedy himself, the man who he would succeed when confirmed. most importantly, and as evidence of judge kavanaugh's good judgment, he made the wise decision to marry a texan. his wife grew up in abilene and

graduated from the university of texas. but now that the nomination has been made, the senate will follow what we refer to here as regular order. that means the judiciary committee, led by chairman grassley, will thoroughly vet the nominee, and then the committee will debate and vote on the nomination, and then the nomination will come to the floor of the senate where we will debate the nomination and vote on that nomination. we have already heard some say that there is not enough time to carry out this process before the midterm election, which should raise all of our antennae both judge gorsuch, by the way, and justice sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after they were nominated, so the truth is we have plenty of time to do our job under the constitution. we do want to be thorough, and

we will, but we also owe it to the court and to the american people to move expeditiously to fill this post so as not to leave it vacant. justice kennedy said that he intends to leave at the end of the month. as the senior democratic senator from connecticut said recently, the senate should do nothing to artificially delay consideration of the next justice, and i agree with him. it's consistent with the standard here in the senate. some have said, well, we have a midterm election coming up, maybe we ought to defer filling the vacancy, but in 2010, i would note that just like this year, leading up to a midterm election, senate democrats confirmed president obama's nominee to the court, elena kagan. so there is plenty of precedent for moving expeditiously, thoroughly, not recklessly, but

in a focused fashion to confirm this nomination once vetted and once voted on. it's no secret that judge kavanaugh will help decide cases that will be important in the life of our nation. that's the role of the supreme court. and it's already clear from his previous experience that he has plenty of preparation, both character democratically and work experience -- academically and work experience and life experience that have prepared him to do exactly that. he's demonstrated the intellectual capacity that we would expect of a supreme court justice and has demonstrated over the years a rigorous understanding of the law. he's demonstrated his sharp mind and analytical skills in a variety of jobs by working in the white house as a lawyer and as staff secretary to the president. by the way, for those who don't know what a staff secretary does

in the white house, that's the person who has the final eyes on a document before the president is presented something for signature. it's a very, very important job, and brett kavanaugh was staff secretary to the president of the united states during the term of office of president george w. bush. he's also taught at law schools like harvard where he was actually hired by now-justice elena kagan, who he would serve alongside, as well as teaching at georgetown and yale. and we know during the years he has been on the appellate bench, he's handed down hundreds of decisions. and let's not forget that in order to obtain that important position, the senate already confirmed him once in 2006 by a vote of 57-36. we all know this is president trump's second nomination to the supreme court after that of justice neil gorsuch just last

year. justice gorsuch in his first term on the court has already demonstrated the power of his pen, the clarity of his thought, and the force of his legal reasoning, and i'm sure that justice scalia would be proud of his successor's impartiality and his rigor and his self-discipline. but based on his distinguished record, i think judge kavanaugh will display many of the same attributes that justice gorsuch has displayed on the supreme court. in coming weeks, we will hear a lot about judge kavanaugh's interesting life story, about his long career as a dedicated public servant, his service to his community, and, yes, his strong catholic faith. but at the end of the day, the decisions of the supreme court should not be affected by personal agendas, political or otherwise. that's because the interpretation of the law is a discipline unto itself, and it should always be separated from

the personalities or the preferences or the ideological or political agenda of the judge. that's what judges do. if they can't do it, they shouldn't serve as a judge. and justices by their work must be insulated from the day-to-day politics that we are all too common with here in the congress. the court, of course, should not be a partisan or political institution. it was created by the founders to be something apart from the political branches of government, the executive and legislative branches. that's because the political branches of the government run for election and are held accountable by the voters, not so judges who serve for a life term. i know that president obama once argued in favor of what he called an empathy standard in judicial decision-making, but that's not my standard and i

know it's not judge kavanaugh's standard either. it is another way to call for result-oriented judging, which is the opposite of what a good judge should do. as a former judge and justice of the texas supreme court, i believe those that serve in the judicial branch must put their personal beliefs aside and apply the law as written and faithfully interpret those laws passed by congress, signed into law by the president, as well as interpreting the text of the constitution. if they want to be policymakers, they ought to run for congress. they ought to be subject to the vote of the electorate. they ought to run for school board. they ought to run for security y council. if you want to be a judge, you have to take an oath to do something different from serving in those sorts of offices, those

political offices. it's crucial that as this process begins to unfold that we remember that, and it's important that the president's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from the angry and unhinged element that we have seen already reflected on our tv screens. at times we seem to forget that judges in our political system are not charged with making the law or making policy but rather interpreting the law and the constitution of the laws written by the congress and signed by the president. but based on what we have seen so far, the confirmation process will no doubt be contentious. we have seen activists already encourage members of the senate to abandon civility and decorum, and i hope we resist. we have seen some of our colleagues already engage in various publicity activities and talk about battle lines being drawn as if this was some sort

of war to be fought. they have indicated their unwavering opposition to the president's nominee before we even knew who the nominee might be. one of our colleagues came to the floor of the senate before the nomination was announced and said he would oppose whomever president trump were to nominate. well, that should tell us a lot. it's not about the individual. it's about the office and it's about kowtowing to a political base that demands opposition at all costs and at all terms. to anything this president might do, no matter how qualified the nominee might be. well, in the days ahead, i think we can predict from experience that these attacks will continue. some of our colleagues will demand that judge kavanaugh reveal how he would rule in a

particular case in exchange for their vote. well, how corrupt would that be to insist that the judge tell you ahead of time how he would rule in a particular case in exchange for a vote for confirmation? that would be clearly wrong. and it would be wrong for any judge without hearing the case, the arguments of the lawyers, the facts of the case to prejudge an outcome. that, again, is not what judges do. they don't run for office based on a political platform like the political branches of government do. those of us who run for office in the senate or the house, we're happy to talk about what we believe in, what we would do if elected to office, but that's not what judges are supposed to do. what's more, there is clear precedent for resisting those

sorts of guarantees ahead of time. justice route bader ginsburg said in her own confirmation that that sort of assurance is completely inappropriate. justice ginsburg gave what i believe is the correct response to such requests, saying she would offer no hints, no forecasts, no previews of her rulings. trying to predict how ethical justices will decide particular cases is a futile endeavor, because for good judges, it depends on learning the facts as well as entertaining the legal arguments by the lawyers involved. not coming into it with a preconceived notion of how you would rule in any case under any facts involving a particular topic. sure, hypotheticals can be dreamed up, but no judge knows the right decision until he or she studies the case before them.

i can tell you, mr. president, that we relish the opportunity to support and defend the president's nominee against any and all baseless attacks. we will not back down. we will not surrender the field to those who make unjustified criticisms of the nominee or attribute to them -- him some characteristic or some experience which is entirely false. we will defend the record of judge kavanaugh, who i think is a thought fut soy ant -- thoughtful servant. we will not allow others to use him as a sacrificial lamb in some sort of vengeance campaign against this president. we pledged the same level of support for justice gorsuch and we showed we were able to do just that, to defend the

president's nominee against unjustified attacks and will do so again, joined by judge kavanaugh's many other supporters, including those who do not share his political or judicial philosophy. i noted today a liberal law professor, akeel omar said that even liberals should support this nominee. you can read for yourself in "the new york times." the stake is too important to let unfair and inaccurate accusations be made about the nominee without correcting them. the american people deserve better. this nominee deserves better. the american people demand judges like brett kavanaugh who are fair and independent arbiters of the law. the basic problem is that in recent years, some of you, the court is a way to circumvent and

evade the political process and achieve their preferred policy outcomes when judges pronounce from the bench some radical change in the law or public policy without the chance for voters to vote on that individual or on those policies. many have come to see this as an end run around the normal political process. those who can't win at the ballot box, well, let's win on the court. but that's not the right philosophy. that's not the one preferred by most americans nor shared by the founding fathers in this country or evidenced in the constitution. during the first 18 months of this administration, president trump has nominated and we've confirmed 42 members of the federal judiciary, including justice gorsuch. the next on our list is judge

kavanaugh. so we look forward to doing our duty under the constitution to vet the nominee, to ask the tough questions, to have the debate and then the vote in judiciary committee, and then to bring that nominee to the floor of the senate and to have that debate and that vote here. the vote -- but vote we will this fall on this nominee. and i trust that we will keep the same sort of time frame that we've seen applied impartially in cases like justice sotomayor and justice kagan and justice gorsuch. there's no reason to drag this out other than for partisan political purposes. so let's do our job. let's be dignified about it. let's not engage in unnecessary name calling or falsely attribute to the nominee beliefs

that he does not have or make wild, unhinged predictions about what may happen to the supreme court were he to be confirmed. i look forward to confirming this new equally outstanding nominee this fall. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator for connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor to talk for a few quick moments about what the stakes are as we begin this debate over a new swing vote on the united states supreme court. this is a fairly simple chart listing off a number of preexisting conditions that tens of millions of americans have

and what it says is that the supreme court could take away your health care if you have a history of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, pregnancy, lupus, parkinson's. the list goes on. the reason for this is that the new priority for those that oppose the affordable care act and the protections that are built in it for americans who are sick or have ever been sick, the new strategy is to use the court system as a reason to try to invalidate the protections in the law for people with preexisting conditions, protections, by the way, that republicans said that they supported during the debate over the affordable care act. the case is currently before the district court level. it's texas v. united states, and

it has drawn interest because of an exceptional decision by the trump administration. the trump administration has decided to weigh in on behalf of the petitioners, abandoning the traditional role of the executive to defend a statute. traditionally an executive will defend a statute regardless of whether they support it or not because who will support the statute if not the united states government. in this case the trump administration is going to court to argue that the united states congress cannot, under the constitution, provide protection to people with preexisting condition against discrimination and rate increaseses are from insurance companies. now, this should freak out the tens of millions of americans who have preexisting conditions because without the protection that's in the law today, health care will be unaffordable and

unavailable to the over 100 million americans who have any history of disease. now, given the importance that the trump administration has placed on this case by weighing in this exceptional, unprecedented way on behalf of those who are trying to pull apart protections of people with preexisting conditions, we have to expect, we have to prepare for the fact that this case may move from the district court to the appellate court and eventually to the supreme court. and if it does, this seat that we are about to debate will likely will potentially be the deciding vote as to whether americans in this country who have preexisting conditions will continue to be able to get health care. and so i just wanted to come to the floor, as we start to set the table for this conversation, to make very clear what the

stakes are. the trump administration has taken the exceptional position of arguing against people with preexisting conditions saying that congress cannot, by law, protect people with preexisting conditions. president trump, as a candidate, made it very clear that his priority was to put justices on the court who would correct for the fatal flaw of john roberts. he identified that fatal flaw as john roberts defense of the affordable care act. he made a promise that he wouldn't make that decision again. he would not put somebody on the court who would vote to uphold parts of the affordable care act. you've got to take the president at his word. most of the things he said he would do as president of the united states when he was a candidate he has done. a lot of folks here didn't take him seriously. didn't think he would really try to unwind nato, didn't think he would really try to ban muslims

from the united states, didn't think he would pursue this idea of the wall. he did all those things. let's take his word when he says he will not support a supreme court that will uphold the affordable care act. and the case that is moving up to the supreme court today is a case that would take away protections for people with preexisting conditions. second, he essentially outsourced the decision over who would be his nominee to these two political groups, the federal society and the heritage foundation. now we know where the heritage foundation is on the affordable care act. they have made it their mission over the course of the last seven years to try to destroy the affordable care act. they have essentially written the legislation that has been put before this congress on a variety of occasions to try to replace the affordable care act with something that provides no protections for people with these illnesses.

but the federal society is in this game too of trying to attack the affordable care act. and if i be -- in one case, one of the main judicial attacks on the affordable care act, one of the lead counsels of record was a federal society member and 24 other federalist society members signed and filed am cuss briefs in support of this judicial attack against the affordable care act and the protections for preexisting conditions. and so the heritage foundation and federalist society have been in the business of trying to take away protections with preexisting conditions from the beginning of this fight. when you outsource the selection of the supreme court justice to those groups, you know what you are going to get. you are going to get a justice who is going to vote to unwind these protections, and you don't have to do that kind of super investigating because the

president already effectively told you he was going to appoint somebody who would remedy the fatal sin of onroberts, which was to -- john roberts, which was to uphold at least an essential tenet of the affordable care act. i understand what senator cornyn is saying. you know, we should just accept the nominee when he comes before the judiciary committee isn't going to answer any questions and that we shouldn't assume anything that we don't know. but we have some pretty good evidence thus far. in addition, we have judge kavanaugh's writings. judge kavanaugh's attacks in his judicial opinions on the affordable care act. seven skies is a really interesting case that came before the d.c. circuit court. essentially in the end it upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate. jiang kavanaugh dissent -- judge

kavanaugh dissented. and in that dissent, it was interesting, people should read it. in his dissent, he goes out of his way to suggest that congress has gone far afield from its constitutional limitations in adopting the affordable care act. he writes in his dissent that the individual mandate is unprecedented on the federal level in american history and predicting that by upholding the mandate it would usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principle limit. those are extraordinary words. it's interesting because if you read the dissent, it, in fact, hints that ultimately the individual mandate can be underheld as a tax and so -- upheld as a tax, and so i want to acknowledge the subtlies in it. that it would have a significant

expansion of congressional authority with no limit. the obvious limit is the constitution and the idea that -- that judges would decide what the principled limit is other than the constitution i think is something that should be part of our debate here and the fact that judge kavanaugh went out of his way -- went out of his way to talk about his fears as to how broad the affordable care act may be in addition to his inclusion on the federal society and the heritage foundation list and in addition to trump's very clear signaling that he is only going to appoint a judge who is willing to overturn the affordable care act tells you that if you have any of these conditions you are in the crossfire right now. 130 million people in america have preexisting conditions -- 130 million people. you should take a few of these just to give you a sense of the

scope of the threat. there are more than 15.5 million cancer survivors in the united states today. 23 million americans have been diagnosed with diabetes. there's about 100 million adults who have high blood pressure, about 100 million more that have high cholesterol. 26 million that have az ma, 44 million americans have mental illness, 44,000 diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, 28 million americans have been diagnosed with heart disease. without the protections of the affordable care act, if you have these diagnoses, you won't likely be offered health care, that's what happened prior to the protections for people with preexisting conditions. you weren't even offered a plan if you had some of these conditions, but if you were offered the conditions, you were offered them at rates that were unaffordable. here's some data based off of

c.m.s.'s calculations around operated risk adjustment methodology. they say that for folks that have diabetes without complication the increase in rates without protections for people with preexisting conditions could be about 5 -- $5,600 a year. if you have a drug dependence or addiction, the increase could be $20,000 a year. if you if you had a heart attack, your increase could be $60,000 a year. if you have metastatic cancer, you could be paying a $3 -- 3,500% premium. that's $140,000 in additional surcharge per year. obviously, no one can afford that. that's why if you have a history of metastatic cancer, you're not going offered insurance unless you have that protection. those are the mistakes.

i want to make people understand we're going to have a big debate over what judge kavanaugh will mean for the future of reproductive choice in this country, women's access to contraception. those are really, really important debates. but i want to make everybody understand that this case is coming. texas v. united states is moving through the court system. it is moving through the court system in part because the trump administration is trying to get the judicial branch to invalidate protections for people with preexisting conditions despite the fact that the president told us he liked that part of the law. he has now instructed his judicial department, instructed the attorney general's office to try to strip away protections for people who have high cholesterol, mental illness, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis. and it may be this seat on the supreme court is going to decide that case. i think we can be pretty sure of how judge kavanaugh is going to

rule. his hostility to the ache ache in his writing -- to the affordable care act in his writings. his inclusions on lists of groups that worked for years to undo these protections and the clear signal from the president that he was only going to pick individuals for the court that would unwind the affordable care act tells you how make the stakes are. the supreme court can take away your health care if you have any of these diseases. and that likelihood that they will take away your health care if you have any of these preexisting conditions is radically increased if judge kavanaugh is confirmed. i announced last night i will oppose his nomination. i will down on the floor at length talking about the many reasons why this body should reject this nomination. at the outset i wanted to make clear that this debate over the future of preexisting condition protections for people in this country, 130 million who have preexisting conditions need to be at the center of this conversation over brett

kavanaugh's nomination. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator for illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i thank the senator from connecticut. i'm happy he's bringing to the attention of the senate this critical issue of the future of the supreme court and the impact it will have on families across america. certainly when it comes to something as basic as our health insurance, we understand this. there are forces in work in washington in the trump administration that are trying to put in the affordable care act and in congress many members of congress, the house and senate, have voted 60 times to appeal the affordable care act. we barely saw it survive just a few months ago when senator john mccain in the middle of the night came and stood in that well and voted no along with two other republican senators. they saved the affordable care act. most americans had their own questions about the affordable care act and how important it was, but they couldn't understand how the republicans would come to us and say get rid of it and have no replacement.

we realized as the senator from connecticut just explained that under the old rules with insurance companies, under the old rules, many of us were victims. if you had someone with a preexisting condition in your family, perhaps you had diabetes. perhaps your child was a cancer survivor, asthma, so many different things, health insurance was very expensive if you could get it. we changed the law. we said you can't discriminate against an american because someone in their family has had a preexisting condition. everybody is in the same pool in america. we're going to join in it together. now the trump administration has said they're going to fight that in court. they're going to declare it unconstitutional to try to protect people with preexisting conditions. and so they filed a lawsuit, a lawsuit which is winding its way to the supreme court and when the senator from connecticut, senator murphy, came before us and talked about the new nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court, it's important that he focus on the impact it

could have on ordinary people. most americans put to the test couldn't name the justices on the u.s. supreme court. they know it's a big court, an important court, the highest court in the land, but they don't know who's there until we get into this kind of a debate. and as we do, people tend to learn a lot more about the justices and what their core beliefs are. when it comes to judge brett kavanaugh who now sits on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, he has a lengthy record. 12 years of opinions as a judge, not to mention all the years before that when he was active politically in washington, d.c. and senator murphy of connecticut is correct to note his approach to the law, his approach to the constitution does not give us great hope in preserving the protections on health insurance that are part of the affordable care act. one decision by that supreme court could undo years of legislative work and literally remove protections from

families. we're talking about that today. we should be talking about that today. but it isn't what we're voting on today. and that's why i come to the floor. back on page 8 of the executive calendar of the united states senate is a long list of nominations that are pending before the senate and one of these, which is calendar number 629 on the message number 1402 is the name brian allen benczkowski of georgia to -- of virginia to be assistant attorney general. you have to search the calendar to find it but it will be voted on this afternoon in the senate. is it another routine nomination? not at all. this is a position in the department of justice, an assistant attorney general who is the leader, is responsible for over 600 federal prosecutors who are prosecuting cases across the criminal spectrum from treason against the united states to opioid crisis,

everything in between, 600 men and women, professionals spread across the united states prosecuting the laws, the cases on behalf of the united states government. and now president trump has suggested he wants this man, brian allen benczkowski of virginia to be in charge of the 600 prosecutors. is this a big assignment? in the department of justice, it is one of the biggest assignment. he will be directing the cases that are filed on behalf of the united states of america, critical cases to protect our national security, critical cases relative to crimes being committed, critical cases when it comes to our rights as citizens. he will be leading 600 federal prosecutors. is it not reasonable for us to ask a basic question about brian allen benczkowski of virginia? we did in the judiciary

committee. and here's the question we asked. mr. wens cow i ask -- mr. benczkowski, you're seek be the position of assistant attorney with 600 prosecutors that will you direct. please tell the committee how many cases you have prosecuted as a lawyer. first, civil cases. the answer? none. oh. well, how about criminal cases? how many criminal cases have you prosecuted in your lifetime as a lawyer? none. how many motions have you filed before a federal court? none. wait a minute. you are being chosen to head up the criminal division of the department of justice and you have no experience? you have never prosecuted a case? never? never once been in a federal courtroom, not one time?

that's a fact. you know, so far president trump has sent us a record number of nominees for the federal courts, and i will tell you as a member of the senate judiciary committee, all but two have been approved. i think some of them are awful choices. and some are good. but the awful choices are men and women who have said and done things in their legal practice and private lives which really raise serious questions about whether they have the temperament to be a federal judge. without exception exexcept for two -- except for two cases, without exception, all the republicans on the senate judiciary committee have voted every time for trump nominees. the two exceptions were district court judge from louisiana and a district court judge from alabama. and in both of those cases, people who were being appointed by the trump administration to a

lifetime appointment in a federal district court had no experience in a federal courtroom. i can tell you that one of the hearings on one of the trump nominees -- and i won't bring his name up for the record but you can find it if you wish -- cross-examination by a republican senator on our committee, senator kennedy of louisiana, was devastating. this trump nominee couldn't find his way to a federal courthouse with g.p.s. he had no experience whatsoever in trying a case. and so the decision was made to withdraw his nomination. only twice in a year and a half have trump nominees been so unqualified that they've withdrawn their nominations, and now this afternoon we consider brian allen benczkowski of

virginia to head up the criminal division of the u.s. department of justice, a man with no experience, none, in a federal courtroom. not in a civil case, not in a criminal case. but there's more to the story. why is he here? he's here because at one point in his career he was chief of staff to then-senator jeff sessions of alabama, worked on the senate judiciary committee. i remember seeing him. he looked like a competent, affable senate staffer. we didn't have any direct relationship. but now that senator sessions has been elevate elevated to attorney general, he wants this chief of staff brian allen benczkowski to head up one of the most important positions in the department of justice. that's his connection. that's his angel. that's why his name is on this calendar. that's why the trump administration chose him. if that were the end of the

story, it would be bad enough. someone with no experience whatsoever prosecuting a case to head up 600 federal prosecutors, but as they say and paul harvey used to say, there's more to the story. you see what happened was this. follow me, if you will. after donald trump won the presidency and was in this transition period, mr. benczkowski left his private practice of law to be part of the trump transition committee assigned to the department of justice. and between november and january, the swearing in, he served on that transition committee trying to smooth the way for the new administration to take over the department of justice. at the end when the president was sworn in, president trump was sworn in, mr. benczkowski left the transition committee and went back to his private practice here in washington for a well known firm.

but before he returned to that firm, he sent a letter to the president saying, i hope that you'll consider me to appoint me as a u.s. attorney somewhere in the united states. remember, he has no experience, none, never prosecuted a case, but he suggested he wanted to be considered for that lower level position compared to the head of the division as he returned to private practice. he went back to his law firm -- follow the story. he goes back to this law firm and one of the partners at the law firm calls him in and says, i need for you to take over a case, to represent one of our firm's clients. the client is known as alpha bank, alpha bank. it is a russian bank. and it's a russian bank as i describe the story is very significant in terms of our conversation today about the russian impact on the u.s.

government. alpha bank needed mr. benczkowski to look at the so-called steele dossier. do you remember that? the memo that came out about then-candidate trump and things that were alleged that occurred in russia. well, they asked mr. benczkowski represent the alpha bank because their name popped up in the steele dossier and we think it's terrible and they want to tr a defamation -- they want to consider a defamation lawsuit. so mr. benczkowski takes on the alpha bank as a client in reference to allegations made in the steele dossier. there's more to the story. during the course of the trump campaign, there were unexplained pings and contacts between alpha bank and the trump campaign computers. more than one. still unexplained as to why this russian bank would have any

access or communication with the computers of the trump campaign. you see, the alpha bank is not just another corner bank. the alpha bank is run by individuals who are oligarchs in russia. they are closer to vladimir putin than you can imagine. when the alfa bank decided to open up its london office, they invited as their guest for the opening of the office vladimir putin, who traveled to london to be there for the opening of the office fost alfa bank. so this alfa bank is pretty well-connected and they had some communication, still unexplained, between that bank and the trump campaign and now mr. benczkowski is representing the alfa bank on a question of defamation lawsuits concerning the steele dossier. wouldn't you think -- wouldn't you just think for a moment that if you were mr. benczkowski,

considering the possibility of a job in the trump administration, you would have said to your law firm, i'm not going to touch this one? we have all these allegations about russian involvement in the campaign, we have some computer contact between alfa bank and the trump campaign, we have this oligarch close to vladimir putin personal i will we have this steele dossier, which mentions the alfa bank, wouldn't you this i that the average lawyer would say, sorry to his law firm, i'm being considered for a position in the trump administration, i'm not going to get close to the alfa bank? no, mr. benczkowski said i'll do the work for the alfa bank. well, when the time came and he wasn't considered for the u.s. attorney spot, he was considered to head up all the u.s. attorneys, to head up the criminal division of the department of justice. mr. benczkowski filed all of these papers about all of his activities as a senate staffer, as a lawyer and all the rest. he failed to disclose in the

course that have that he'd represented the alfa bank. not good. it was discovered with some background checks through the f.b.i. that he was in that position. so he was confronted and basically we said in the committee, are you going to recuse yourself from any matters before the department of justice involving the russian investigation? no, he said i won't. i'm going to stick with involving myself in the russian investigation. well, what will you recuse yourself from in light of this representation of alfa bank? i won't take up any cases involving alfa bank. that's it? that's it. that's the best we could get from him in terms of recusing himself from any potential conflict of interest. why is this important at this moment in time? because at this moment in time, i don't know when bob mueller will complete his investigation. i don't know how the white house will react. i don't know what'll happen with the attorney general sessions

who now has recused himself from the russian investigation. i don't know what will happen when it comes to any threats to the assistant attorney general in terms of his future. but there is a possibility that if this president decides that he is going to take an action which is going to have a direct impact on the mueller investigation, if he decides, for example, that he is going to remove from consideration of this -- in the future the assistant attorney general who appointed bob mueller -- i'm talking about rod rosenstein -- a vacancy in that position could be filled by mr. benczkowski. he could take up that position. is this an important decision then? back here on page 8 of the calendar, voted on this afternoon? i think it is.

first the obvious gross incompetence and inexperience of this man to head up the criminal division of the department of justice. second, the fact that he represented the alpha bank, which is under suspicion and investigation as to its activities. third, the close connection between alpha bank and its owners with vladimir putin and russia. fourth, the ongoing investigation with the russian investigation. the fact that we need an aggressive department of justice to protect the right of vote of every single american. the list goes on and on and on. this is the wrong man for this job. i cannot believe, as a proud democratic senator, that the republican party couldn't find one experienced prosecutor in the united states to take over the criminal division of the department of justice and instead they're going to give it to a man mo has never, ever -- to a man who has never, ever darkened the door of a federal

white house. that's what they're doing. it shows you the lengths they'll go to and 12t. shows you -- and it shows you the importance of just another nomination stuck on page 8 of the calendar that'll be voted on this afternoon. and here's the question. it's a majority vote. there are 50 republican senators and 49 democrats in this chamber. senator mccain cell and hasn't -- is ill and hasn't been here for months. under the rules as written in the senate, a majority vote can move this man forward, mr. benczkowski. that's all it takes. what it boils down to is whether or not any republican senators see a problem with this nomination. i hope that each one of these senators will reflect on the fact that they know a handful of individuals, maybe more, who are more qualified to take on this job than mr. benczkowski. let's put somebody on this job

that understands it, has experience. how many people would walk into a lawyer's office and said, i'd like you to represent me. have you ever had case like mine before? and the lawyer says, no, never seen one like this. never represented anybody like you and the client would reply, perfect. that's just what i'm looking for, someone who is so inexperienced and so incapable of representing me. i can't wait to pay your fee. let's not pay the fee of mr. benczkowski. let's return him to his private practice. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cruz: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. jones: i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. jones: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. jones: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak on a matter of both personal and national importance. as many folks now by now, a defining moment in my career as a prosecutor was bringing to justice two former ku klux klansmen for the bombing of a church in 1963. that act of domestic terrorism -- and that's exactly what it was, an act of domestic terrorism -- killed four innocent, beautiful little girls. and as one of their mothers described, it sounded like the whole world was shaking. there's no doubt that it did. the whole world shook as people

asked, how could this happen in america? the land of the free, the home of the brave. but despite the feeling that the whole world shook and indeed the horrific crime did add momentum to the civil rights movement, the catch and release responsible for the murder of those four little girls were not brought to justice for decades. the first came in 1977, 14 years after the fact, by my friend and former alabama attorney general bill baxley. it would be 24 & 25 years later, in 200 is and 2002 that my team of robert posey, jeff wallace, don cochran, bill flemming, bill heming and i completed that journey. but the bombing of the 16th street baptist church was but one of many civil rights crimes that have gone unsolved. solving and successfully prosecuting an almost 40-year-old case was no easy task, and the effort involved a

team of both federal and state law enforcement. media coverage also contributed to some key breaks in that case. in fact, it was through the dedicated efforts of my friend jerry mitchell, an award-winning journalist at jackson mississippi clarion ledger that these unsolved civil rights cases even got a second look. it was when the state of mississippi opened closed files of a jim crow era state commission that jerry discovered that it might be possible to reopen several unsolved cases, including the cases of med emperors and vern damer. when those cases resulted in convictions, law enforcement officers and communities around the south began to reexamine so many of the unsolved crimes, including the bombing of the 16th street baptist church. today there are more than 100 unsolved civil rights criminal cases out there.

many of them are 50 years old or older. some were investigated a little. some were investigated a lot. but because these were state, not federal, crimes, most were never really investigated at all. while it's certainly never too late for justice, years of delays can create serious and sometimes insurmountable obstacles. memories fade or are lost to death. evidence disappears. potential defendants also die, taking the details of their crimes to their graves. but justice, mr. president, can take many forms. it doesn't always have to be a criminal conviction. one measure of justice, not a full measure but a measure nonetheless, can be achieved through a public examination of the facts and determination of the truth about what happened and why.

but because these were criminal cases, the records and files relating to these unsolved cases are often classified or shielded from public view. and sometimes they are literally scattered among various agencies and hard to find. yet the victims of these crimes and their families have no less right to justice than they did at the time the crimes were committed, and the american people have a right to know this part of our nation's history. as has often been said, if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them. in today's climate, i believe we need to be more than ever vigilant, knowledgeable about the mistakes of the crimes of the civil rights era. 11 years ago, nearly to the day, i testified as a lawyer before the house judiciary committee in support of the emi think till unsolved -- emmitt till unsolved

civil rights crimes act. that act created within the cold case division to focus exclusively on solving these unsolved civil rights cases. since the bill's passage, the civil rights division has reexamined a number of these cases, and i certainly applaud their efforts in doing so. but often, as was my experience, these cases end up being solved with the help of journalists, historians, private investigators, and local law enforcement. but that requires having access to the files. it is not an easy task getting access to these kind of files. by ensuring public access, however, to the files and records relating to these cases, we can expand the universe of people who can help these victims receive the justice that they've long since been denied. if we're going to find the truth, it has to start with transparency. that's why today i am introducing the civil rights

cold case records collection act of 2018, which will require the assembly, collection, and public disclosure of government cold case records about unsolved criminal rights -- civil rights cases. this legislation would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of students at heightstown high school and heightstown, new jersey, and their teacher steward wexler, who have joined moo he in the gallery today. it was a couple years ago, long before becoming a united states senator was really on my radar, that i received a car from mr. wexler complaining that he and his students had been stymied in efforts to obtain documents through the freedom of information act about some of these cases. they wanted my support and others force legislation that they were drafting to open these files to the public. since i had already made that

suggestion to folks at the justice department and others, i enthusiastically endorsed their project. who would have imagined that two or three years ago we would be here today. i want to thank them for reminding me of our conversations and our shared commitment and for working with me and my staff to make the introduction of this legislation possible today. it means a lot to these young people from new jersey, who were not even born when these crimes were committed. it means a lot that they care so much about this issue. i also with aens to thank a few other folks -- i also want to thank a few other folks. i want to thank hamilton and bensenko and the professor, a journalist and pulitzer prizewinner for his book "the race be" that examined the role of journalists in the civil

rights movement. i want to thank them for their help in drafting this legislation. there are others who have dedicated their lives to working on these cold cases, people like andrew sheldon in atlanta, alvin sykes who worked so hard on the emmitt till bill and case. a law professor from the northeastern law school and paula johnson from the syracuse university law school, who have all done remarkable work in trying to reexamine these cases. while prosecuting the church many booing education, i learned how deeply important this work is to anyone who lost a loved one just because someone else hated the color of their skin. it's also important to the communities where these crimes occurred. it is impossible to express the emotion and satisfaction our team felt at the conclusion of those trials and the guilty verdicts we obtained. it was a privilege to work on cases that meant so much to so

many. we have come a long way, mr. president, since 1963, but justice delayed does not have to mean justice denied in so many of these cases. when i testified to the house judiciary committee 11 years ago, i noted that we could never prosecute all of these cases, but that as a country of compassion we should find other ways to heal these old wounds. reconciliation can be the most potent medicine for healing. after all this time, we might not solve every within ever these cold cases, but my hope is that our efforts today will, at the very least, help us find some long overdue healing and understanding of the truth. each civil rights crime, each victim of that era deserves as much attention and effort as carol roberson, denise mcnair, addie may collins, the young

girls who lost their lives that sunday morning in 1963. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i come up to the floor today to discuss my strong opposition to the nomination of judge kavanaugh for a lifetime appointment on the united states supreme court. mr. president, there are few issues i take more seriously sasse a senator than my duty to consider and vote on supreme court nominees. it was watching the clarence thomas hearings and seeing how my voice and the voices of people like me all across the country were not being heard that got me to run for the senate in the first place. and i believe it is one of the most important jobs we have on behalf of our constituents.

mr. president, my time in the senate, i've had the opportunity to consider nominees from democrats and from republicans, and for each one of these nominees, i made my evaluation and i based my decision on their experience and record and on my understanding of whether or not they would uphold the constitution and protect our rights and freedoms. i voted for some of them, including a nominee from president bush. and i voted against some of them, each on their merits and each based on how i thought they would serve. but, mr. president, this time is different. there will still be scrutiny. there absolutely needs to be. but this time we know everything we need to know already. and, mr. president, this time the balance of the court is on the line. we know exactly where this nominee will fall on specific issues, no matter what vague answers he chooses to deliver throughout this process. we know this because president

trump told us openly, publicly, and repeatedly. more than any president i have seen, he has been explicit about what he expects from his nominee. he has laid out specific tests and promised to only pick nominees from a prescreened list of people who would absolutely meet them. mr. president, here's what he has said. and here's how we know exactly what this nominee would do. president trump has said he wants a nominee who is fully committed to overturning roe v. wade, criminalizing abortions, and rolling back women's ability to access contraception and other basic health care. on the campaign trail, he promised roe v. wade, quote, can be changed, and that he was going to be, quote, putting pro-life justices on the court so that it would be turned over -- overturned, and i quote,

automatically. he has said he wants a nominee who would immediately declare health care reform unconstitutional and cut off access to care for people with preexisting conditions. on the campaign trail, he criticized chief justice roberts because he, quote -- and this is him -- should have frankly ended obamacare and he didn't and promised, quote, a strong test for a strong conservative who would be different than roberts on health care. he's made it clear he wants a nominee who will keep handing more power to massive corporations and wealthiest americans and keep diluting the power of regular voters. he has made it clear he wants a nominee who would eliminate protections that preserve the air we breathe and the water we drink. he has made it clear he wants a nominee who would roll back the rights and freedoms for our workers, for lgbtq americans and many others. so, mr. president, there is no doubt it could not be any

clearer for a nominee who would swing the balance of the court, i'm going to believe that president trump has told us the truth, and i'm going to believe the extreme right-wing groups who wrote this list for him are sure about where this nominee stands. sol i want to be very clear to anyone who may doubt it or who may think they need to learn more before making a decision. a vote for president trump's judge kavanaugh is a vote to allow five men on the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade. criminalize abortion in america and roll back the progress we've made to help more women and girls access the basic health care they need. a vote for president trump's judge kavanaugh is a vote to put the government, bosses, and men in charge of the reproductive rights and freedoms of women and girls. and a vote for president trump's judge kavanaugh is a vote to go back to the days when women had to go into back alleys for

health care, when women had to ask for permission, when women were shamed, and when women and girls died because of the laws of our land. we unfortunately already know all too well what this looks like because there are states nationwide where extreme politicians have chipped away at women's health care rights and have been waiting for exactly this moment, for someone exactly like judge kavanaugh to go enfurther. but -- even further. but that's not all. a vote for president trump's judge kavanaugh is a vote to end protections for people with preexisting conditions and go back to the bad old days when insurance companies were in charge and people would have to pay more or be cut off from care simply for being sick. a vote for president trump's judge kavanaugh is a vote to give massive corporations even more power over our economy, our workers, and our elections. a vote for president trump's

judge kavanaugh is a vote to eliminate environmental protections and make our air and water dirtier and less safe erasing so much of the progress we have made in recent decades. a vote for president trump's judge kavanaugh is a vote to step back from the progress we've made, to expand rights and freedoms and basic human decency to lgbtq americans. i could go on. in the coming days and weeks as we learn even more about the ways that judge kavanaugh will fulfill president trump's promises, i absolutely will. so, mr. president, i voted against judge kavanaugh when he was nominated for the circuit court, and i strongly oppose this nomination now. and i will be urging my colleagues to stand with me in rejecting him and calling on president trump, send us someone who will stand with women and workers and families and who would truly commit to respecting settled law and the rights and freedoms we hold so dear.

and i will be urging people across the country to stand up, speak out, make their voices heard. this is a critical moment right now. the united states senate has the power to stop this court from swinging against our rights and freedoms, and every senator needs to know they will be held accountable for their vote. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate proceed to legislative session and that the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 5515. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: resolve that the house disagree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 5515 entitled an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such

fiscal year and for other purposes and ask a conference with the senate on the disagreeing votes of the two houses thereon. mr. mcconnell: i move the senate insist on its amendment, agree to the request to the house for a conference, and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on the part of the senate. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that at 5:00 p.m. today, the senate resume legislative session and vote on the pending compound motion. further, that if the motion is agreed to, senators cornyn and reed each be recognized to offer a motion to instruct conferees and that the senate vote on the motions in order listed with no further action on the motion, and that there be two minutes of debate between each vote equally divided in the usual form, and that following disposition of

the reed motion and the appointment of conferees, the senate resume executive session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate now resume executive session. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until >> vice president mike pence will be attending the republicans gathering. we hope to hear from senate leaders before 2:15 p.m. eastern when lawmakers return. they will have confirmation vote on the nomination of a judge on the night circuit court of appeals. there will be another vote following that to limit debate on a justice department nomination. also likely more speeches reacting to president trump's nomination of brett kavanaugh to the u.s. supreme court. earlier today senate democrats on the judiciary committee held a news