resources act, the water bill under senator grasso. nor more appropriation bills to do. there are a lot of things we will be working on over the course of the next few weeks. in addition to processing this nominee through the process that we have here. >> i had a chance at the republican national convention to chair the platform committee two years ago.we got to the judiciary party and we talked about the republican president. >> c-span3 continues live coverage of this after the meetings. we will step away from it here. live coverage of the u.s. senate. be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this the yeas are

272, the nays are 27. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate debate on the nomination of brian benczkowski of virginia to be assistant attorney general, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of brian allen benczkowski of virginia to be attorney general shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wish to vote or to change his or her vote? if not, there are 51 ayes. 48 nays. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of state, brian allen benczkowski of virginia to be an assistant

attorney general.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, there are a lot of things you need to know when you're considering voting on a candidate for congress. for example, what are his or her views on health care, taxes, the military, the economy, the first amendment, and the list goes on and on. but, mr. president, when it comes to judges, there are really only two important questions. one is this individual well qualified and, two, does this person understand the proper role of a judge? because unlike legislators' opinions, judges' political

opinions should be irrelevant because a good judge will leave his or her political opinions outside the courtroom door. a good judge knows that her job is to judge based on the law and the fact, not political opinions or personal feelings. supreme court justice antonin scalia whom we lost in 2016 had this to say about the proper role of a judge. he said, and i quote, if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. if you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong. end quote. or as current supreme court justice neil gorsuch has said more than once, and again i quote, mr. president, a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge. end quote. mr. president, last night the

president nominated judge brett kavanaugh to be the next supreme court justice. this is another outstanding pick from president trump. like justice scalia and justice gorsuch, judge kavanaugh understands that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not to write it. to judge, not legislate, to call balls and strikes and not rewrite the rules of the game. his qualifications are outstanding. he's a graduate of yale law school. he clerked for a supreme court justice. he's a lecturer at harvard law school. and most importantly, he's had an outstanding career as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals where he has handed down thoughtful, well reasoned decisions that reveal his deep respect for the law and the constitution. his opinions have been endorsed by the supreme court more than a dozen times and are regularly cited by courts around the

country. mr. president, i'm looking forward to sitting down with judge kavanaugh during the confirmation process. we're going to follow regular order on this nominee, just as we did with justice gorsuch. the judiciary committee will vette judge -- will vet judge kavanaugh and senators of both parties will have a chance to sit down with him before the full senate votes on his nomination this fall. unfortunately, a number of senate democrats have already made it clear that they're going to make this process as partisan as possible. one democrat senator, the senior senator from pennsylvania, put out a statement yesterday announcing his intention of opposing the president's supreme court nominee before, before the president has even made his announcement. that's right, mr. president. the democrat senator from pennsylvania decided he wasn't going to even pretend to examine the nominee's qualifications.

instead, he announces his intention of opposing the nominee before he even knew who he was opposing. but that's unfortunately par for the course for the democrat party. if one thing has been clear since justice kennedy announced his retirement, it's that democrats are not interested in a nominee's qualifications or commitment to the rule of law. they're interested in a nominee's political opinions. and they're ready to disqualify any nominee who doesn't share their political views. mr. president, democrats' apparent belief is that the only good judge is a judge who will use his role to advance their agenda. that view is deeply disturbing. and it betrays democrats' failure to understand or their decision to ignore the fundamental purpose of the judiciary. our judicial system was designed to secure the rights of citizens under the law, not to serve as

the arm of a particular political party. nobody's rights can be secure, mr. president, when judges start ruling based on political ideology instead of on the law. mr. president, fortunately for the rule of law, president trump doesn't believe in nominating judges based on their agreement with his personal opinions. instead, he believes in nominating judges who understand that their job is to rule based on the law and the constitution. and that's exactly what he's done with judge kavanaugh. so, mr. president, i look forward to the process that the senate will undertake starting with examining this judge's record, having hearings in front of the judiciary committee, ultimately a debate here on the floor of the united states senate, and eventually, mr. president, a vote on this judge, this nominee's nomination to the supreme court.

it's an important matter, one which the constitution charges the senate with and one that we need to take very seriously. and i intend, mr. president, as i hope most of my colleagues do, to give fair consideration to this very qualified nominee, to examine his record, have him answer the hard questions, and then to have an opportunity to vote up or down. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask that my intern be granted floor privileges -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. peters: mr. president, i move the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my intern thomas stevenson be granted floor privileges while the senate in session on tuesday, july 10, 2018. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i'd like to recognize a very special michigander. it is my pleasure to welcome tom stevenson of greenville, michigan, and his family to washington, d.c. and to have them here in the senate gallery right now. tom is joined by his parents holly and mark as well as his younger sister sarah. mr. president, today tom is fulfilling his wish to be a u.s. senator for a day with the assistance of the make-a-wish foundation. it is truly an honor to partner with make-a-wish to grant tom's

wish. this wonderful organization creates life-changing wishes for children with critical illnesses, giving them and their families meaningful experiences while bringing communities together. tom discovered his passion for government and politics at eight years old when he joined his grandmother on a trip to washington, d.c. during that trip, tom met with legislators to advocate for heart defect research and today he's getting a firsthand look at a day in the life of a u.s. senator. from my weekly constituent coffee to meetings with my fellow senators, briefings and interviews, and even a conference call with the michigan media, u.s. senator for-a-day stevenson is getting the full experience. i am always inspired when i meet young people interested in public service, and i'm impressed that tom chose serving as a u.s. senator for a day as his wish. one issue that tom is particularly concerned about is

college affordability and how his generation will prepare for the future. this is a concern that i share with tom and that i know many of our fellow michiganders share with us. here in the senate i'm working to ensure everyone has access to the skills and education that are vital to joining the modern workforce and competing in today's global economy. i introduced legislation that will reduce the price tag for higher education by allowing students to compete and complete college-level courses while they are still in high school. and i will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find commonsense solutions that will help make higher education more affordable. i'd like to thank my colleague from west virginia, senator capito, for taking time out of her day to meet with me and tom this morning. we wanted to show him that there is real bipartisanship here in the senate. we discussed how we work

together to enact legislation that will help recent graduates who have defaulted on their loans repair their credit and get back on track. all of us here in the senate should draw inspiration from tom. at a time when our country is increasingly polarized and politics can feel toxic, we need smart, hardworking young people to recommit to public service and to making our country a better place. at 18, tom is still is it years away from being -- is still 12 years away from being eligible to serve as a u.s. senator. but his passion for our government gives me faith in our future. i'd like to thank tom for making the trip to washington. i hope that tom leaves the senate today with an even deeper interest in our government and a better idea of how we all can work together to improve the

lives of michiganders and all americans. although tom's term as senator for a day winds down tonight, i'm committed to serving as his advocate and voice here. as he prepares to start his freshman year at michigan state university, i am proud to welcome tom both as a fellow senator and as a fellow spartan. i look forward to everything he will accomplish in the coming years and decades. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? mr. peters: i will he withhold. -- i will withhold.

mr. sasse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you, mr. president. one of the most consequential duties of the senate is the consideration of a supreme court nominee. this is the congress' opportunity to shape the direction of the federal courts and to defend a judiciary has focused on laws, not on policy. for those of us who have been called to this limited role for a time, this work is important. it will outlast us by decades. none of us should take this duty lightly. with the appointment of justice gorsuch last year and now a record 22 judges to the courts of appeals, the past 18 months have been among the most consequential for the judiciary in the history of the nation. and that was before justice kennedy's retirement. and for a significant as things have been so far the last year and a half of the judiciary, the current supreme court vacancy is arguably the most important thing that the senate will do this year.

this vacancy is a remarkable opportunity to affirm what the role of a judge is under our constitutional system of republicans -- small "r," not partisan party republican, but small "r" republican government. this shouldn't be an exercise in policymaking, as vital as it can be as times. making law is not the job of the courts in any way, shape, or form. don't get my wrong. setting goals and making policy can be very important, but it's done in the open and it starts at home. americans answer our biggest questions outside of government with our friends and neighbors, with our communities of worship and our rotary club and with entrepreneur and all sorts of volunteerism. when you get to government, the policymaking choices that the american people make, they do through their representatives who they elect, who they can hire and fire. to put it bluntly, members of

the senate can be fired. members of the house of representatives at the other end of this building can be fired. 435 of the 535 people we work with in the congress are always within 23 months and 29 days of being sent back home by the we of people who are actually in charge of policymaking in america. but the court is different. "no" back home can fire a supreme court justice. they have lifetime tenure. we should reflect more often on why our founders decided to give members of the judiciary lifetime tenure. that's why we don't want those judges with their lifetime tenure to be writing laws or making policy. if a judge wants to make policy, he or she should take off their black robe of impartiality and they should run for office. it's a legitimate thing to do. all of us in this body have done it. we think it's a way to love our neighbor and to serve our community. but in our system of we the

people the voters get to decide who gets to make policy. judges have black robes and they have lifetime tenure. they are not policymakers. regrettably, as our ever fraying sense of common identity in america is falling apart, in the eyes of many of our citizens we are warping the role of the courts and of judges, reducing the courts from the plain and ever compelling words of marbury versus madison that the job of the supreme court is, quote, to say what the law is, close quote, not what some judge wishes it were. we are instead seeing the judiciary warped into a profane occupation of pronouncing policy preferences but without any mechanism of meaningful accountability by which the people could still be in charge. we should not let that stand. we should not want to see that perpetual warping of the judiciary into a place of being policymakers and yet policymakers without accountability. we need a recovery of basic

civics in the country about what the role of a judge is and what the purpose of the courts are. we should not let this confirmation process turn into a battle for our own policy preferences that just breaks down our constitutional architecture. the constitutional architecture on which american free society depends. sadly, that is apparently what many people in the resistance aim to do. they aim to bork judge kavanaugh's nomination by any means necessary. we're less than 24 hours into this, and folks are already declaring that if you can't see that brett kavanaugh is a cross between lex luther and darth vader, you aren't paying enough attention. the american people are smarter than that. that kind of charge is silly and the american people don't want judges who think of themselves as super legislators. unfortunately far left super pacs are shouting we have reached the apocalypse.

i was outside last night and in addition to the signs saying kavanaugh was hastening the end of the days there were on the ground other signs printed up with other potential nominees' names to the court about how they were the ones who were going to bring about the end of days. this isn't true. we need less w.w.e. thunder dome and a lot more schoolhouse rock. the confirmation process of the supreme court nominee should be an occasion to do basic civics with our kids and it shouldn't be dividing republicans and democrats about policy preferences. it should be an occasion for americans to come together and talk again about why judges wear black robes and have lifetime tenure. this should be a test of the character, the competence, and the constitutional commitments of someone would's been nominated to the judiciary because in the american system judges have a peculiar role. no more and no less than what article 3 of the constitution gives them. in judge kavanaugh we have a

compelling guy. he's a standout dad and even his most ardent critics will argue he's one of the most thoughtful judges on the court of appeals today. he's got a ton of impressive opinions to his name especially on the subjects of separation of powers and administrative law, which are now dominating the docket not only of the d.c. circuit court of appeals where he currently sits but also on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh was put on the circuit court at age 41, 12 years ago, a remarkably young man to be put on such a prestigious court. and in his 12 years on the court he authored more than 300 opinions. and i think the current count is more than 100 of his opinions have been cited bid more than 200 of his peers on other courts across the country. he is truly a judge's judge, and last night i heard from people on both the right end and the left end of the policy spectrum that legal experts who have said to me quotes that were sort of

remarkably eerie in their echo. brett kavanaugh is always the smartest person in every room he's in, and yet when you're in the room you'd never know that he knows it because of his humble manner and winsome ways. in my colleagues want to pursue these confirmation hearings as mere naked partisanship, they should actually resign their seats and try to get cable news jobs. but if we want to take our jobs seriously, if we want to have an honest debate, then we should be taking seriously our charge to uphold the three branches of government and the way they check and balance one another. with those 300 opinions we've got a lot of homework to do. i'm looking forward to diving in further of judge kavanaugh's opinions and i'm sure what we're going to find is a guy who has lots of deference and respect for a limited job that a judge is called to fulfill. i hope my colleagues in this chamber will join me in diving into those opinions and

foreswearing the thunder dome silliness that many people outside are urging us to turn the confirmation process into. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. menendez: thank you. mr. president, i want to start by thank pg my colleagues who will -- thanking my colleagues who will be joining me shortly on the floor to voice their support for the nato alliance. and once again we find ourselves finding and facing a crisis of president trump's own creation. for nearly 70 years nato has served as a pillar of stability

and security for the united states and our democratic allies across europe. it was there, as europe rebuilt after world war ii, it was there to win the cold war, it was there to defend the united states after september 11. yet today for the first time since world war ii, an american president has given our closest allies in europe reason to question the trustworthiness of the united states and our reliability as a nato partner. president trump slapped dash approach to foreign policy, borne out of heated campaign rallies instead of thoughtful cabinet meetings has real implications for our national security. such reckless behavior by president trump has weakened the united states on the global stage and created a more dangerous world for our citizens and our troops serving abroad. today the president is on his

way to europe and his intentions are clear. president trump will use every opportunity that comes his way to admonish our allies, alienate our closest friends, and degrade the post-world war ii international order in the hopes of winning favor with the dictator from moscow. in fact, the president this morning said that his easiest meeting during this trip would probably be with vladimir putin. easy because they share common values. easy because he wants to be putin's friend. easy because trump would rather deal with an autocrat than negotiate with democratically elected leaders. let's be clear meeting with a thug intent on undermining american democratic values should not be easy and it should not be chummy. yet as national security advisor

said in the past, the president thinks he can be friends with putin. i don't know why or why he would want to be. and i agree with those comments of the former national secure advisor general mcmaster. it makes no sense. attacking american democracy is not exactly an act of friendship. we know the circumstances are dire. the leaders of our intelligence community and the entire senate intelligence committee on a bipartisan basis have concluded that russia not only attacked the united states in 2016 through its cyberefforts, but continues to so discord and destabilize institutions that are at the very heart of american democracy. yet to this day president trump continues to take putin at his word. many of us find ourselves

questioning the president's true qloilts. and it is no surprise that the leaders in europe are questioning the commitment of the united states to the post-world war ii international order. in the absence of u.s. presidential leadership, i want to make clear to our allies abroad as well as our adversaries in the kremlin as to where members in the united states senate stand. we stand for the rule of law and an international order based on democratic values many we stand for security alliances among democracies based against mutual defense against our enemies. we stand with those who invade -- we stand with our friends through thick and thin. tomorrow the foreign re relation -- in the foreign relations committee we plan to have an explicit bipartisan resolution affirming the u.s. national security is inextricably linked to the security of europe.

we're not schmucks, mr. president. the foreign relations committee will reaffirm a commitment to article 5 of the nato charter which says that an attack on one is an attack on all. we recognize that since article 5 took effect, it has only been triggered once, only once, by and in support of the united states following the september 11 attack. and to this day, nearly 17 years later, nato troops still serve in afghanistan in support of the american efforts. these countries have all sent their sons and daughters to fight and die alongside ours. they stand with us and we with them against extremism, terrorism, you aor terrorism and

proudly in support of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. members of the nato alliance have been steadily increasing their defense spending for the past four years in reaction to putin's invasion of crimea and the implications for security. our allies understand the threat posed by a dictator who tears away territory from its neighbors. the question is, does president trump? is there more work to be done to meet the 2% commitment in countries across the alliance? of course. but we need to acknowledge the progress that has been made and the trend lines that are headed in the right direction. let's not jeopardize those trends by insulting the very leaders we need by our side. so this week in brussels, the president should do something he has proven incapable of thus far, he should thank our allies for their steadfastness, for

their resilience, for their commitment to working with us to counter the threat posed by russia. president trump should work with our allies to collectively increase sanctions on moscow. he should work with nato to build our collective cyberdefenses against the onslaught of russian cyberattacks and disinformation. these are all things he should do, things that a normal american president would do. but based on the tweets and his past actions, i have little hope that he will choose such a path. the president should also work with our allies to continue in the fight against isis. nato countries form the core of the global coalition to defeat isis. nato governments hoes working groups -- hoes working groups, contribute resources, provide stablization assistance and face serious challenges in addressing

the plight of foreign fighters. in iraq nato is working to share more responsibility in training the security forces. this is how strategic partnerships are supposed to work. we identify challenges, cooperate on solutions, share the burden of funding, assistance in support of a shared objective, in this case a stable, unified iraq that can stand up to iran. in syria, nato should be a natural ally encountering russia and iranian aggression despite irrefutable war crimes an crimes against humanity, putin continues to bolster the butcher of damascus. they are complicit in targeting civilians and civilian structures in syria. russian forces are actively working with assad's regime to

bomb opposition in southern syria into submission. these military operations are taking place today inside the very deescalation zone that president trump touted last year with putin in vietnam. these developments have led to the largest displacement of civilians in southern syria since the beginning of this war. the president must make clear once and for all that russia is not a constructive partner on syria, that is it a willing accomplice an perpetrator of war crimes. our friends in ukraine are fighting for their country on a daily basis, battling russian troops, as the globe focuses on the world cup in russia, at least 17 ukrainian troops have been killed or injured in their own country by russian forces. killed or injured in their own country. we're helping our ukrainian frens with training -- friends

with training and equipment. under no circumstances can this aid be diminished in any way. president trump needs to understand that any attempt to do so will be met with strong and unified opposition in the senate. president trump can never lose sight of the importance of eastern ukraine nor can he forget the plight of so many cry means who suffered under russian oppression to this day. today i have -- i call for the united states to declare a policy of nonregular nicks of russia's -- this is modeled on the wells declaration which said that the united states would never recognize the soviet annexation of the states. it meant something to the people of lithuania and estonia all who iewrnd to be free of moscow's oppression, and today they are free. it represented the united states' commitment to the

territorial integrity of independent countries. today we have the same opportunity to send the same message to those courageous ukrainian citizens living in crimea. president trump was reported to have said the people of crimea want to be part of russia because they speak russian. instead of misinformed judgments from the president, we in the world need clear leadership that says definitively to president putin that we will not stand for the occupation of crimea and the ongoing attacks in ukraine, we will not stand by while president putin participates in the war crimes in syria and we will not stand by while russia attacks democratic institutions here in the united states and those of our closest allies. i hope our president will meet with putin in helsinki and express the simple but powerful

statements. there is nothing in his track record that makes me think he will do so. this president to this day will not criticize the russian president. he sought earlier to lift sanctions on russia. a president who questioned ukraine's sovereignty over crimea, a president who routinely trashes partners in the strongest military alliance the world has ever seen. this behavior is bizarre, it's erratic and no reflection of who we are as a country or a people. so, in closing, i would remind the president that the russia sanctions law restricts his ability to unilaterally lift sanctions on russia. such a move would be subject to congressional approval. so as he embarks on his quote, unquote, easiest meeting with vladimir putin, he is con trained by a law that was --

constrained by a law supported by 98 senators. we must make clear that such relief will only come when he withdraws from ukraine, returns crimea and ends his support for bashar assad and stops interfering in our elections. as someone personally sanctioned by vladimir putin, i will not stop to earn sure that law is implemented. the hallmark struggle is between those who champion democracy and autocrats who use oppression, military invasions, and disinformation to achieve their nefarious ends. this week this battle comes into sharp contrast. will our president side with our democratic allies in brussels or will he side with an autocrat in the kremlin? either way the world needs to know that the united states senate has made its view clear.

we stand with nato. we stand with our allies. we stand with democracy and the rule of law. we stand for the international rule of order that has lasted for decades. we will never shy away from their defense. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague, our neighbor from new jersey, for the excellent job he does in just about anything he does, but particularly today as ranking member of the foreign relations committee, his leadership is invaluable to this country. so i thank him for it. now, mr. president, president trump is on his way to attend the annual summit of nato leaders in brussels. the president should use the occasion to build up the transatlantic alliance rather than tearing it down. since its founding nearly 70 years ago, nato has become the most powerful and successful

security partnership ever created. the first half of the 20th century is marked by unprecedented human suffering, depression, war, genocide. after world war ii, in the face soviet aggression and expansion, nato showed the world a different way. working together with other international institutions, nato established the political and economic rules of the road that have promoted our national security and our mutual prosperity. this institution now finds itself under incredible and in completely unnecessary strain from russia's interference in democracies across europe including the u.s., from china's geopolitical provocations. our president, president trump has routinely berated the leaders of our allies in far

harsher terms than the president has criticized president putin of russia, who directed a nerve agent attack in the united kingdom and continues to prop up the brutal assad regime in syria. he has shown an eagerness to impose tariffs against europe but a reluctance to sanction president putin and his crow necessary. he accepted the word of president putin over the the con is en sister of 17 -- 17 agencies in the intelligence community. president trump will follow the summit with a one on one meeting with president putin in helsinki 100 miles from the russian border. before leaving for europe this morning the president summed up his agenda. he said, i have nato. i have the u.k., and i have putin. frankly, putin may be the easiest of all. who would think? who would think?

president trump, consider all you have said and done in the past two years, considering your kid glove approach to president putin that has everyone of us here scratching our heads, any one of us could have predicted putin would be your easiest meeting but every one of us is in fear of what putin might get out of you. every time the president has negotiated one on one with president xi, with kim jong un, our rival has got be the better of him and of our country, and many of us fear what president trump will do alone with putin, what he'll concede what putin will get out of him. the president of the united states should be a clarion voice for our values, bolstering our allies, isolating our adversaries. president trump has unfortunately and alarmingly been the opposite. the president -- mr. president, the values at the foundation of our nato alliance are worth fighting for: free markets, free and fair elections,

representative government, rule of law. these are the values that protect our citizens from the encroachment of tyranny. president trump ought to recognize that power resides in the values shared by our nato allies as well as the strategic sense of using nato as a powerful bulwark against the abuses of resurgent russia. later this afternoon the senate will vote on a motion to instruct conferees on the defense bill to reaffirm congress' enduring and unequivocal support for nato. i hope it receives overwhelming bipartisan, if not unanimous, approval that it so deserves. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, two

weeks ago secretary pompeo appeared before the appropriations committee, and i got the chance to ask him a simple question. i asked him whether it was still the position of the united states that russia should not be allowed to join the g-7 without adhering to the outlines of the minsk agreement, the agreement that seeks to try to resolve the crisis created in europe and in the ukraine by the russian invasion of eastern ukraine. i give secretary pompeo credit because his answer was brutally honest. he said that he certainly could foresee a series of trade-offs with the russians by which they would be allowed to join the g-7, rejoin the g-7 without withdrawing their forces from eastern ukraine or crimea. that is a stunning reversal of prior u.s. policy, the idea that we would trade away ukraine for some set of concessions from

russia on another area of national security, maybe in the middle east. but it is unsurprising. it is unsurprising because as donald trump has made clear over and over again, his primary objective is to become friends with vladimir putin. his primary objective is to try to square himself and the kremlin without regard to consequences for u.s. national security. and so i'm very pleased to join senator menendez and senator schumer and senator reed on the floor today to express our hope and desire that president trump finds some way to stop undermining the nato alliance as he heads for this important summit and understands that russia presents a real and present danger to the world order, to american security, and to the future of global security

if we continue to communicate to them that they pay no consequences for their erasure of borders in and around their periphery and their continued attempts to manipulate elections outside of their borders. i hope that there are others in the room with president trump and vladimir putin when they meet. because it is hard for us to understand what leverage putin has over trump such that he would continue to give p away so much to russia without getting very much in return. why he would continue to do russia's bidding in trying to tear apart nato, in trying to tear apart the e.u. without getting anything in return. i don't know what leverage putin has over trump, but i would feel much more comfortable if there were some other people in that room who coulding witness to -- who could be witness to those discussions to make sure that

discussion with putin doesn't go the same way that the discussion with president kim did in north korea. i also am here on the floor to remind my colleagues about the importance of this underlying relationship with europe. i'm sure my colleagues have already said it, but let's just remember that article 5 has only been exercised one time, and it was in the defense of the united states. it was when the united states was attacked and we asked our nato allies to join with us to try to rid afghanistan of a government that had given shelter to those that had attacked us. don't forget that nato exists for our benefit as well as for europe's benefit. don't also forget that for four consecutive years european governments have been increasing their defense spending. countries have been scaling up for four consecutive years their contributions to the defense budgets. but i also don't want my colleagues to think that the

measure of trans-atlantic security is simply the amount of money that you're putting into a defense budget. i'm not saying that that isn't important, but this administration from the beginning has had backwards the way in which you protect america from the threats that we face all around the world. peace does come through military strength, but increasingly the threats that we face, increasingly the threats that russia presents to the united states and to our allies are nonkinetic threats, are not military threats, and they require other means of counter action. so as you're trying to measure whether europe is a full and meaningful participant in a security arrangement with the united states, i don't mind measuring defense contributions which are increasing year by year, but let's also remember that it is europe that is handling the flood of refugees leaving the security vacuum of the middle east. the united states is doing

nothing, nothing of consequence, of importance to handle that refugee flow. it is europe that is dealing with that refugee flow. it is europe that often deals with the most mature terrorist organizations setting up cells inside of europe. it is in fact been europe that has borne the brunt of terrorist attacks since 9/11 due to those mature organizations being able to exist inside europe. it is the counterterrorism capacity, the law enforcement capacity that europe offers to confront those threats that also matters to our security. it's europe that has had to stand up capacities to counter russian propaganda that floods in particular eastern europe and the balkans but also central and western europe as well. we don't measure those counter propaganda resources in the defense budget but they are serious and they are increasing.

and it is europe that spent billions of dollars trying to diversify their energy supplies so as to cut off russia's most important revenue source, the export of oil and gas. the united states provides advice to europe on how to do that, but it is europe that is spending hard dollars reverse flowing, diversifying domestic energy, bringing in gas from other countries besides russia that has made the biggest difference. and so i want my friends here to understand the holistic nature of the security partnership that we enjoy with europe and with our nato allies. yes, defense spending matters, but it is representative of this administration's unwillingness to understand the panoply of ways in which you need to defend our country besides why you have the a robust defense budget -- besides just a robust defense budget that causes them to

misunderstand the nature of this relationship. it's europe's focus on refugee resettlement, focus on counter propaganda capacities, europe's focus on fighting russian appropriate began that add frankly just as much to our joint security as their defense spending does. now, i don't expect that donald trump, even how little study he affords to the national security of the united states, is going to get up to school on all of these different capacities that europe lends the alliance, but it's important for us in a bipartisan basis to recognize that this is a strong alliance, that as much as we both push and pull each other, it remains strong. and don't think that the grievances only lie on our side of the aisle. our european partners for years told us that we were making our collective security weaker by continuing an invasion and occupation of iraq that was

creating more terrorists than it was killing. so we have grievances with our partners in europe, but they have had historic grievances with us as well. and it's important for us to recognize that historical fact as well. so i am here to express my desire that this president acknowledge the importance of this alliance. i am here expressing the hope that the summit isn't the unmitigated disaster that most people think it will be given the spirit in which the president leaves for it castigating our nato allies on his way out the door. and i don't want us to come to the conclusion that without nato, without the european union, without the postworld war

ii structures that we created in the midst of the rubble of that global conflict, that global security can be preserved. we have taken for granted that countries don't march on each other by and large any longer. while we still have instability, we don't have nations invading other nations in the way that we did 100 years ago. that's because of nato. that's because of the set of global security structures that the united states and europe have helped stand up together. and if they fall apart as it seems that this president roots for on a regular basis, then our assumption of how conflict will play out or not play out over the course of the next 10 to 20 to 30 years falls apart as well. and so, mr. president, i'm glad to join my colleagues today in support of the nato alliance and

in hope that the president understands the importance of it as he heads off to this critical, critical summit. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. today i introduced a motion to instruct the conferees to the national defense authorization act regarding the critical importance of the north atlantic treaty organization for united states national security, for our protection. i join my colleagues this afternoon in support of the motion which sends an important message to our allies, our partners, and our adversaries that the united states is unwavering in its support of europe free from the threat of external aggression and in support of the rules based international order that has promoted international security for decades. the motion to instruct provides important guidance at this critical juncture before the nato summit in brussels and the u.s.-russia summit in helsinki.

the motion instructs the senate conferees on the national defense authorization for fiscal year 2019 to ensure the final conference report on the ndaa reaffirms the ironclad u.s. commitment under article 5 to the collective defense of the alliance. it reaffirms the united states commitment to nato as a community of shared value, including liberty, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. the motion also calls for the united states to pursue an integrated approach to strengthen european defense as part of a long-term strategy that uses all elements of u.s. national power to deter russian aggression. it recalls on the trump administration to have a whole of government strategy to counter russian maligned activities as required by last

year's national authorization act and submit it to congress without delay. we are still waiting for over a year the strategy. finally the motion reiterates u.s. support for the rules based international order and for expanding and enhancing our alliances and partnerships which is one of our greatest security advantages. no one should ever doubt the united states' resolve in meeting its commitments to the mutual defense of nato alliance. unfortunately this motion has become necessary because some of our closest allies have come to the question the u.s. commitment to u.s. self-defense. president trump has at times called the alliance objects late and dent -- denigrates it as being as bad as nafta. our allies are wondering if they can rely on the united states to come to them in a crisis.

recently the -- he added that old pillars of reliability are crumbling and the alliances dating back decades are being challenged from the time it takes to write a tweet. to make matters worse, the administration eagerly scheduled summit meetings with russian president vladimir putin on the heels of a nato summit in brussels. this only adds to fierce that president trump does not share the security concerns of our european allies and parters in. instead of concentrating on rebuilding alliance cohesion and unity after his divisive diplomacy at the g-7 meeting in canada, president trump appears intent on orchestrating this with an you a their tearian rule that threatens the security of the united states and its allies and parters in. meeting with putin now is, in my view, ill-advised and further trump appears to be ill-informed

that russia poses to the security of the united states and that of our allies and partners. the national defense policy, which this administration authored and promoted, refocused our attention from international terrorist groups to our two major challenges, russia and china, and yet the president, in his actions, appears to be undercutting his own national defense policy. in addition, i'm deeply concerned that president trump is meeting one one with a former k.g.b. mind master like putin, president trump's attitude will not be enough to challenge them over russia's aggression against the united states and our allies. president putin is not, quote, unquote, fine. as recently affirmed, president putin directed an attack on our

elections. to this day russia continues, according to administration intelligence officials to target elections in democratic countries, including the upcoming mid-term elections in the united states. russia's use of hybrid operations, including disinformation, propaganda, corruption, and financial influence, hidden campaign donations, and even chemical attacks on civilians in foreign countries fundamentally threatens our security and the security of our allies. and russians ongoing aggression against neighboring countries, including ukraine, is unacceptable and violates international norms. in light of this russian threat, president trump should take the opportunity at this important nato summit to lead the alliance toward greater solidarity and cohesion, unfortunately president trump's statements ahead of the summit point in the opposite direction. i understand and share the

concern of many across the political spectrum that our nato allies are not spending enough on their own defense and many are not on track to spend 2% of gross domestic product of national defense by 2024. this has been raised by previous administrations, including the bush and obama administrations. but ultimately the united states participates in nato because we believe the transatlantic partnership is in the u.s. national interest and not because other countries are paying us for protection. we must look at the whole picture of allied contributions and to the strategic competition with russia and china that i mentioned was the singular point of the national defense policy authored by president trump after being prepared by secretary of defense mattis. the whole picture includes the following. our allies stood with us following the september 11,

2001, terrorist attacks invoking for the first and only time, as my colleagues have said, the obligation under article 5 for corrective -- collective self-defense. as of the end of the year 7 of the 8 nato will he meet the 2% of spending. in addition 18 members put forward credible plans to get to 2% of g.d.p. by 2024. since 2014, all nato members have halted the decline of their national defense spending and total defense expenditures have increased by more than $87 billion. u.s. foreign military sales to nato members are up significantly in the past two years, from less than $5 billion in 2015 to an estimate of nearly $40 billion in 2018. our nato partners provide significant host nation support to the tens of thousands of u.s.

troops stationed in europe, including germany's $51 billion in military infrastructure and $1 billion in host nation support to the 32,000 troops stationed in germany. nato members have deployed troops in afghanistan, kosovo, the nato training mission in iraq, and elsewhere, and with many making the ultimate sacrifice. nato soldiers have died serving side by side with u.s. soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in the defense of fundamental values that we share. and we cannot ignore that. the motion to instruct recognizes that in the strategic competition with near peers, russia and china, again the singular feature of the new national defense policy of this administration, one of the greatest advantages is the

alliances and parter inships and what they bring to the fight. this is not a partisan issue. it is not a republican issue or a democratic issue. it is a national security issue. in fact, the motion supports a number of provisions in the senate version of the f.y.-2018 ndaa proposed by my republican colleagues in the armed armed ss committee that reaffirms the national security in the nato alliance. at this critical juncture, congress, as a critical branch of government, has an opportunity to lead just as congress demonstrated leadership in overwhelmingly passing the russian sanctions bill as part of countering the america adversaries through sanctions act by a vote of 9le- -- 98-2. that sent a clear message to

russia that their behavior must change. similarly, strong senate support on the motion to instruct will send a strong message to our allies, partners, and adversaries. it will demonstrate solidarity and show support for europe. it will send a message of support for the need of russia to stop its disruptive behavior and sends a message to president putin that his behavior is not fine and there is a continuing cost to be paid for russia's maligned activity and he will not succeed in dividing the nato alliance. in conclusion, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to send a strong message to nato by voting later today on the motion to instruct. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the minority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from rhode island as well as those who were on the floor earlier. the remarks address our future

with the relationship with our nato alliance and particularly in light of the visit that president trump is now making with vladimir putin of russia. i'm glad that many of my colleagues came here to speak on the threats posed by president trump to america's core national security alliance, something that would have once been unimaginable. in fact, there was a time when a republican president named ronald reagan really inspired the united states and the world by noting how important the nato alliance is to the world and to the united states. in a speech which he gave to the parliament of great britain in 1982, ronald reagan said, we're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention, totalitarianism. it is not that democracy less vig rugs, but they have refined their instruments of repression. optimism is an order, president reagan said, because day by day

democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. our military strength is a preregular sit to peace, but we maintain the strength in the hope that it will never be used for the ultimate struggle will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of will and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated. president reagan went on to say to the british parliament, i often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the west about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of plan and the hardships of our imperfect world many now contrast what president reagan said about the partnership of atlantic alliance nations and nato with what has happened with this current white house and president regarding some of

these same key western allies at the g-7 summit last month. first, president trump stunned the western world by saying even before arriving at the summit that russia should be welcomed back into the group of g-7 nations even though russia was expelled after invading and seizing sovereign ukrainian territory which it still holds. president trump made this plea to try to win over this effort of support for putin to a western world that is skeptical of putin and his tactics. putin watched an aggressive cyber active war right here in the united states in an attempt to void and change a national election and to favor his candidate over another. that, in many respects, is a cyber act of war which president

trump refuses to acknowledge. at the summit itself, president trump arrived late and left early after letting it be known that he didn't even want to attend the g-7 summit with our traditional allies. the president, sad to say, was utterly disrespectful to our nation's most reliable allies. the white house trade advisor peter navarro said of canadian prime minister that he had, quote, stabbed us in the back, and then mr. navarro went on to say, there's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad foreign diplomacy with president trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. withdrawing from a g-7 statement after initially agreeing to it. then he went on in the tweets, the president did, personally

attacking prime minister trudeau in the coursest terms and despairishing the oldest western allies simply imploring them not to end international order and cooperation. one senses that president trump's sense of history extends to the day before yesterday. has he forgotten that since 9/11 the canadians have today by us. 159 canadians have given their lives standing by our troops in afghanistan in a nato effort since operations began there in 2002. could we ask anything more of a trusted ally than to sacrifice the lives of its young soldiers. canada has and continues to despite this language from president trump. and then to add insult to injury, president trump showered

one of the most brutal dictators with a white house made propaganda video showing north korean leader kim jong-un as a great statesman. can anyone here imagine what would have happened if president obama had constructed a pop ganda video before -- prop granda before beginning his negotiations with iran or if the president saluted an iranian general. foxx tv -- fox tv and many others would have had a field day with that image. i am all for talking with one's adversaries. i met with my share of autocrats around the world trying in my small way to advance america's interests and values. but i don't check america's values or reality at the door at those meetings. i do not know of any modern president would let normal disagreements between key allies turn into a personal spat that

alienates our friends and undermines our security. in fact, i'm increasingly convinced that president trump is so enarmorred by validation seeking autocrats and offended by our traditional allies, expressing disagreements that he's incapable of distinguishing friends from enemies. this is truly problematic and dangerous. now our allies are just cause to worry that president trump will give away concessions to vladimir putin just as he did with the north korean dictator. against all reason and international norms, trump is considering recognizing russia's illegal occupation of crimea because, sadly, president trump has no sense of history and little knowledge of vladimir putin's true agenda. he is making threats and belittling nato, the strongest alliance on the face of the earth while at the same time craving time with vladimir putin

whom he describes as a fine man. that is something which i'm sure the people in our nato alliance find incredible. quite simply, the first and long overdue statement from trump to putin ought to be do not interfere in america's elections ever again. i don't want your help, which was an attack on our democracy, and i do not believe your denials. that ought to be the opening remark with vladimir putin. my guess is it won't even be close. mr. president, i can think of few times in history that the party of ronald reagan has sat so quietly on its hands while american -- america's president's actions threaten our security alliance and our place in the world. i don't understand why the senate foreign relations committee has not held a full committee hearing on russia in more than one year, not to mention ever conducted an investigation into russia's attack on our last election, something clearly within the jurisdiction of this committee

in which it did in the past amid allegations of foreign election interference. what are the republicans stunning silence about trum's undermining of nature -- about president trump's undermining of nato? there are congressional responsibilities which ought to call on all of us in both political parties to rise to the mr. president, think about what russian president putin would most likely like to see happen in the west and compare it to what's happening under president trump. president trump has called nato obsolete, question the centrality of the security guarantee of article 5. he's questioned whether nato should come to the aid of baltic nato states, nato members. in fact, president trump reportedly asked of nato at the recent g7, why do we need it? is that now the official position not just of president trump but his republican party? i would implore those members of the senate of both political

parties who have visited the baltic nations and understand the vulnerability of those states and their bloody history over the last century and a half, to speak up on the behalf of the need for nato, to stand in concert and in alliance with those baltic states. this week the canadians sent their forces and representatives to lathia where they are providing special help on the ground. similar nato forces are in lithuania and estonia. they're doing their best to convince putin not to engage in aggression against these small nations while at the same time the president of the united states questions the purpose of this effort. president trump has withdrawn the united states from key international agreements on trade, climate, and even the expansion of nuclear weapons in iran. in doing so the president has estranged the united states from its allies. while i hope we do reach a diplomatic agreement with north korea, i want to note that what little was agreed to in

singapore doesn't even come close to the terms and inspections that were in the iran nuclear agreement from which president trump simply walked away. president trump has insulted and strained relations with america's closest european and western allies, so much so that the european counsel president donald tusk recently dismissed the united states with, quote, with friends like that, who needs enemies. end of quote. it's reached the point that just ahead of the nato summit, we lost another senior career diplomat when james melville, our ambassador to estonia resigned over frustration with controversial comments being made by president trump. the ambassador served under six different presidents, 11 sects of state and never thought the day would come when he couldn't support a president's policies until now. president trump has tried to discredit key democratic institutions and processes in the united states sowing

mistrust in our political system and government. he's insulted poor nations, made immigrants a manufactured enemy, separated children from parents forcibly, and declared that america must come first in this world. isolating the united states day by day more and more from the nations and countries that have been our traditional allies. why in the world is this president pursuing the agenda of one of our adversaries who attacked our election process, militarily seized sovereign territory of our allies, murdered dissents on our allied soils, repeatedly buzz and test nato defenses, and jail and repress its own people when they advocate for basic democratic rights? before departing this morning for brussels, instead of setting a positive tone for the nato meeting to follow, president

trump incredibly decided to take to twitter to criticize our allies again. my friend, an american patriot, senator john mccain, was one of the few republicans -- one of the for you to recently speak up on behalf of our alliance. here's what he said. to our allies, bipartisan majorities of americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization and supportive of alliances based on 70 years of shared values. americans, senator mccain said, stand with you, even if our president doesn't. mr. president, i couldn't agree more. i wish john mccain were on the floor of the senate today to deliver those remarks in person. but his spirit is here among those on both sides of the aisle who value our nature toe alliance -- our nato alliance and cannot understand the relationship between president trump and vladimir putin.

the cause of democracy and freedom in this world requires a strong alliance that stands together for values the americans believe in, share, fight for, and die for in war after war. we need that spirit to return again to the united states. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: last evening i joined many of my senate colleagues at the white house as the president introduced judge brett kavanaugh to serve as the associate justice of the united states supreme court. judge kavanaugh is one of the most widely respected judges in the country. i heard the president last night refer to him as a judge -- as a judge's judge. he is an outstanding choice to

serve as justice of the supreme court. justice kavanaugh -- or judge kavanaugh is a former law clerk of the justice that he has been nominated to replace, and that is justice kennedy. and i talked about justice kennedy's service on the supreme court and to the people of this country in my speech yesterday. judge kavanaugh earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from yale university. he then clerked for judges on the third and ninth circuit before joining the chambers as a law clerk for justice kennedy. he served in the office of solicitor general and also the office of independent counsel. after several years in private practice, judge kavanaugh

returned to public service working in the white house counsel's office and as staff secretary for president george w. bush. in 2006, he was confirmed to the d.c. circuit where he has served since. he is also a well regarded law professor at harvard and yale and georgetown. judge kavanaugh is a leader not only in the law but throughout his community. as examples, he has volunteered at catholic charities on a regular basis and coaches his daughters' youth basketball teams. the committee has received a letter from former law clerks of judge kavanaugh, people who represent views across the

political and ideological spectrum. many judges describe their former law clerks as adopted family members. in other words, law clerks know their judges best. so i turn to what some of those said through letters that they sent to our committee. judge kavanaugh's former law clerks write that he is a person with immense, quote, strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks. end quote of that specific part of the letter. but i want to read a longer quote from that letter.

he is unfailingly warm and gracious with his colleagues no matter how strongly they disagree about a case. and he is well liked and respected by judges and lawyers across the ideological spectrum as a result. he always makes time for us, his law clerks. he makes it to every wedding, answers every career question, and gives unflinchingly honest advice. that advice often boils down to the same habits that we saw him practice in chambers every day. shoot straight, be careful and brave, work as hard as you possibly can, and then work a little harder. end of quote from letters from

law clerks serving judge kavanaugh. his record, his judicial record is extraordinary. the supreme court has adopted his views of law in dozens of cases. judge kavanaugh's opinions demonstrate profound respect for the constitution's separation of powers. he understands that it's congress' job to pass laws. and where he sits in judicial chambers, it's the role of those people and he figures it's his role to faithfully apply those laws as congress intended. that's why his opinions emphasize that judges must focus on the text and apply laws as

written by those of us elected to the congress, not by unelected and in turn largely unaccountable federal judges. and this meant that they aren't to be accountable except to their constitution and the laws of this country. courts may not rewrite laws to suit their policy preferences. judge kavanaugh has a record of judicial independence. he's shown a willingness to rein in executive branch agencies when they abuse or exceed their authority. and you don't have to be in congress very long to understand that that's a daily habit of people in the executive branch of government to go way beyond or feel your way way beyond what

the law allows that person or that program to do. as judge kavanaugh has explained in numerous opinions, executive branch agencies may not assume more power than congress has specifically granted them. and he has emphasized that judges may not surrender their duty to interpret laws to executive branch agencies. now, that's pretty common sense for anybody that's had eighth-grade civics, or political science classes in college. but it isn't something that all judges agree with. the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing for judge kavanaugh's nomination in coming weeks. as i noted in my remarks to this body yesterday, liberal outside groups and democratic leaders

decided weeks ago to block whoever the president nominates. they're already pushing feeble arguments to cause needless delays. for example, some democrat leaders and democrats members of the senate who aren't leaders say that we shouldn't confirm a nominee nominated during a midterm election year. now, where did they get that idea? because the senate has never operated like they would suggest. sitting justices breyer and kagan, prominent examples that i can freely give to you but also numerous of their predecessors were nominated and confirmed in midterm election years. so where do my colleagues get

that idea that just because this is a midterm election year you can't take up these nominations? it happens that kagan was approved august 2010 as an example. the american people see this argument then for what it is -- obstruction, pure and simple after all, democratic leaders announced that they will oppose anyone nominated by president trump. just anyone. in fact, some democratic senators announced their opposition to judge kavanaugh mere minutes after the president nominated him. it's clear that a number of my democratic colleagues have chosen the path of obstruction, a path of resistance -- not like

the constitution offers every senator to give advice and consent. here we have a highly qualified nominee who has offered numerous influential judicial opinions -- and i stated how they've been respected even when those same cases get to the supreme court. we even have liberal leading -- leading liberal law professors. i'll give you an example of akil reed amar, endorsed kavanaugh on the pages of "the new york times." but some of my colleagues can't even bring themselves to at least consider judge kavanaugh's nomination. as i mentioned yesterday, liberal outside groups and their allies are trying to convince senators to ask judge kavanaugh his views on specific cases and

supreme court precedent. i want to emphasize that these questions are inappropriate, and in greater detail i said that yesterday. justice ginsburg has announced a famous statement of hers, and she did it during her own confirmation hearing, that a nominee should offer,, quote-unquote,, no hints, no affordable care act, no preview, end of quote, of cases that can potentially come before the court. now, maybe some of my colleagues would think, well, if something is going to come in a couple months after you're on the court, why can't you give us your views of that? but they might be asking questions about something ten years down the road. well, how legitimate are the

views you're going to overturn this president or you're going to rule this particular way in a particular case? we also have justice kagan declaring -- declining to state her views on roe v. wade, saying, quote, the application of roe in future cases and even its continued validity are issues likely to come before the court in the future, end of quote. so you're expect -- so you expect a justice to look at the facts of a case, look at the law, look at the constitution and not -- and leave their own personal views out of it, but you expect them to do it independent of anything they've said in their hearing before the judiciary committee because nothing should be said there

that's going to influence something ten years down the road. i expect that judge kavanaugh will likewise decline to comment on his views of particular cases decided by the supreme court. so i congratulate judge kavanaugh on this nomination. i had the opportunity to meet with judge kavanaugh earlier today. i know that he looks forward to answering questions from my colleagues in the coming weeks. and i look forward to hearing from him again when he appears before the senate judiciary committee. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president i -- first of all, we're about to go to conference, the first of three votes here, very, very soon. they are yet to be considered among the most considered

consequential votes of the year. we've been working closely with the president, with -- in our john s. mccain national defense authorization act is going to be a reality. it's going to be going to conference. we have actually spent -- we've done this through regular order in a very effective way. we've had our committee, the senate armed services committee has been in concert with our combatant commanders, with secretary mattis, with the service chiefs, with the president. we have a markup in our committee markup. we actually had over 300 amendments. i'm disturbed that we can't change this policy that we've had for a long period of time that says that if one person on the floor when we're considering a bill, the ndaa that we have considered successfully for 57

years, that we're not going to be able to pass -- to consider amendments if one person objects. that's something we may want to address. and so to overcome that, we adopted 47 bipartisan amendments, both through the managers' package and the votes on the floor. now, tomorrow we're going to hold our first big meeting of the conferees. i've been through a number of these in the past, and this is where every member on the house and the senate is going to meet each other, going it talk about their issues, talk about their successes and what they want to accomplish in this conference report. i've already visited with ranking member, senator reed, chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, and we have a commitment to finish this conference report by the end of july. it is very ambitious. it's something we're going to be able to do. the second vote we're going to be on is to instruct the conferees in terms of -- the conferees in terms of the civilious issue. -- the cfius issue. personally having been recently

to china and the south china seas, i'm seeing what they're doing right now in north africa and in djibouti. we have a different china than we've had before. we're going to have to thoroughly review transactions for national security concerns and i think senator cornyn is on the right track. i fully support his amendment. the last one we'll have from senator reed, and i think this is significant, too, because our president has said several times -- and i have to say this. not one president in my memory, democrat or republican, has been successful in getting the -- our allies in nato to carry their share of the burden. and this president is getting real tough on that. i think the reed motion to instruct conferees on nato is one that is going to give him a lot of the force that he needs to impact these other countries. you know, right now when we -- if you take 29 countries, 67% of

our actual budget for our country is -- of the entire amount of 29 countries, that isn't right. this is something we can change and we'll be hopefully succeeding in doing that during this conference that we have. and with that, i will yield the floor and ask for the roll call, ask for the yeas and nays. i ask that the time for 5:00 be moved to now. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session. the question occurs on the pending motion with respect to the house message a company

h.r. 5515. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

123450 vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are any senators who wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 91. the nays are 8. and the compound motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the national will be in order. mr. cornyn: i have a motion to instruct conferees which is at the desk, which i ask its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, moves that the managers on the part of the senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 5515 be instructed to insist that the final conference report include large to maintain the position -- language to maintain

the position of the senate regarding modernization of the kph on the foreign investment of the united states as retphreubgted in title 17 of the amendment. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cornyn: this motion to instruct conferees to the defense authorization bill is related to our reforms of the operation of the committee on foreign investment in the united states. it's no secret china is weaponizing investments in the u.s. to exploit national security vulnerabilities including back door transfers of dual use u.s. technology and related know-how. i'm delighted to work with senator feinstein, the senator from california, on this issue. i want to thank our friend, senator inhofe, who has taken a leadership role on the armed services committee. senator crapo on behalf of the unanimous vote in the banking committee. i would yield to senator inhofe. mr. inhofe: just for one comment. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i want to commend the senator from texas, senator cornyn, for the

effort he put forth in a very difficult issue. i wholeheartedly agree with him, and i must say that this morning i received a phone call from secretary mattis who strongly supports this and says we really need to have this. a senator: mr. president. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be ten minutes in length and i yield back the remaining time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reed: i would commend senator cornyn and senator feinstein for their extraordinary work on this vital legislation and urge complete support and yield the floor and yield back all time. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to instruct. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. v:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 97, the nays are 2. the motion is agreed to. the senator from rhode island. a senator: mr. president, i have a motion at the desk and i ask that it be read. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i have a motion at the desk and ask that it be read. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, moves that the managers on the part of

the senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 5515 be instructed to, one, reaffirm the commitment of the united states to the north atlantic treaty organization, nato, alliance, as a community of freedom, peace, security, and shared values. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in order. there are two minutes equally divided. mr. reed: mr. president, this would instruct the conferees of the national defense authorization act conference to support our traditional relationship with nato, reaffirm our commitment to work with them, recognize their work with us as they deploy personnel in afghanistan, as they deploy personnel and training missions in iraq, and as members of nato armed forces have given their lives to help us in afghanistan. it recognizes our traditional long-term support for nato and

looks forward to continuing support, and i would urge passage. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. be inhofe: i ask that the senate be in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. would the senators please take their conversations out of the well. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i do agree with -- with the senator from rhode island. i would like to say that there are 29 members of nato. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate is not in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, of the 29 countries, if you take all of their defense budget and add it together, the united states defense dollars equal about 67% of that. i believe that this is sending the right message to let them know that we appreciate them. that's our partners in nato --

but also that our president has made a very strong pitch, that each one of them come up with 2% of their commitment, and they have not done this, and i think the president needs to have our support. i think this does add legitimacy to that request. i believe that burdensharing has always been a problem. we have never been able to do it under republican or democrat presidents, and this maybe is the time that we can get it done. i support this amendment. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to instruct. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? to not, the yeas are 97, the nays are 2. the motion is agreed to. the chair appoints the conferees on the part of the senate. as follows -- the clerk: senators mccain, inhofe, wicker, phisher, cotton, rounds, ernst, tillis, sullivan is perdue, cruz, graham, sasse, scott, crapo, reed, nelson, mc quais skill, shaheen, gillibrand, blumenthal, donnelly, hirono, kaine, king, heinrich, warren, peters, and brown.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate resumes executive session. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, this past year and a half of the trump administration has been a constant daily barrage of scandal, corruption, and chaotic incompetence. and in this environment, the senate now considers the president's controversial nomination of brian benczkowski to lead the criminal division of the united states department of justice. it has been over a year since benczkowski was first nominated, and there have been repeated calls for his nomination to be withdrawn. why this man for this job at

this time? there is a very good chance that something fishy is happening here. the warning signals of something fishy should be evident to democrat and republican senators alike. the obvious question is whether president trump and his political and legal team are using this appointment to sneak a fast one by the american people and put themselves in a position to interfere from the inside with the department of justice investigation into the dealings between russia and the trump campaign. the so-called mueller investigation, though it has expanded beyond bob mueller into several other parts of the department of justice. how would this fast one work exactly? well, we'll be voting tomorrow to install a trump ally and

nominee, a longtime political operative with ties to a russian bank and to the recused attorney general jeff sessions into one of the most powerful posts at the department of justice, a position that just so happens to have significant supervisory control over special counsel mueller's investigation and the southern district of new york criminal investigation into trump's personal lawyer michael cohen. what could possibly go wrong? remember, we're dealing with a president who remains the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the department of justice. we are dealing with a president who repeatedly violates long-standing rules and norms in his continuing effort to

interfere with that investigation. we are dealing with a president who has told the press he believes he has, and i quote him here, absolute control over the department of justice and who repeatedly criticizes attorney general sessions' recusal from the russian interference investigation as insufficiently, and i quote him again here, loyal. we are dealing with a president who appears to have actively interfered in the department's investigations into michael flynn, who insisted on, quote, loyalty from his f.b.i. director, and who admitted that firing that f.b.i. director was to ease pressure over what he called the russia thing, end quote. we know all of this here in the senate, often from this president's own mouth and own tweets. with that backdrop from the oval office for this nomination,

extra caution is warranted to be sure we are not being led into trouble. worse still, it's not just the president who's up to no good with respect to the ongoing criminal investigation. republicans in the house, i suspect hand in hand with the trump white house and legal team, are pressing their smear campaign against deputy attorney general rosenstein, seeming to want to kneecap the independence of the mueller investigation and get access to its confidential investigative files. as a former united states attorney, i recoil from the notion that a legislative body wants to peek over the shoulders

of prosecutes -- prosecutors in an ongoing investigation, particularly when those legislators are so closely allied with the subject of that investigation. against that added backdrop of house interference, the senate is being asked to install a trump loyalist into a key position of authority and control over the russia-trump conclusion investigation. even more caution is warranted for this nomination, given the behavior of the house. so why this man for this job at this time? why benczkowski? let's review. he's nominated to be the chief of the criminal division, a critically important office within the department of justice.

he will oversee nearly 700 career prosecutors who are some of the most talented and experienced lawyers in the country. criminal division lawyers prosecute nationally significant cases, from high-profile public corruption to child exploitation to complicated money laundering and international organized crime cases. one thing that is obvious, that is obvious, is that mr. benczkowski brings astoundingly weak qualifications to that task. given the stakes and the complexity of the criminal division's work, you would expect someone leading the division who had years of experience as a prosecutor. who had tried cases to a verdict, someone who knew the ins and outs of the division's work and knew his way around a federal courtroom. to say benczkowski lacks this

experience is putting it mildly. he may be the weakest candidate ever put forward in the history of the department to oversee the criminal division. he is probably not hireable into the career positions he will oversee. the man has less courtroom time than the average citizen who has sat son a jury. -- sat son a jury. he has never tried a case of any sort, criminal or civil, state or federal. he has never argued a motion, something most litigators have done in their first years out of law school. he has never worked as a prosecutor. his stints at the department of justice were never as a prosecuting lawyer but always on

the political side. in his whole career, he told the senate, he could only come up with one or two times he ever entered a courtroom on what he called routine scheduling or other matters. so it's not benczkowski's qualifications or experience that are the reasons for his appointment. if qualifications and experience are not the reasons for his appointment, why put this prosecutorial neophyte into one of the most powerful and important prosecutorial positions at the department of justice? what, one might ask, is the motive? what do we know? although sears questions remain unanswered by the department of justice and by mr. benczkowski,

we know from our correspondence with the department that the russia-trump collusion investigation is being run under department of justice procedures that require approvals by the criminal division for a wide array of investigative and prosecutive steps. as the u.s. attorney for rhode island, i used to have to work with the department of justice and go through those approvals and those steps. the mueller investigation and the cohen investigation in the southern district of new york are both subject to those same rules. that gives mr. benczkowski, if he is confirmed, not just a window into the russia-trump collusion investigation, but the ability to actually interfere.

what else we know about mr. benczkowski is that he was a long-time political operative here in the senate on the senate judiciary committee where he worked as staff director for none other than senator jeff sessions. well, attorney general jeff sessions has recused himself from the russia-trump collusion investigation. it is therefore an obvious question if this person brings no experience as a prosecutor but plenty of experience as a close political operative for jeff sessions whether that close political relationship is the reason, and that in turn presents the obvious question. since benczkowski's not there for his experience or for his qualifications, is he being

installed as some kind of back channel, either as a trusted intermediary to get information to attorney general sessions around his recusal from this investigation perhaps, or perhaps in a worst-case scenario to be a pipeline to trump and his lawyers of confidential investigative information, the kind of information that house republicans are trying to get their hands on. or maybe it's simply to jam the bureaucratic gears whenever robert mueller seeks approvals from the criminal division. these are not easy questions, but there is an easy answer to these questions, and that easy answer is don't worry, mr. benczkowski will be fully recused from that investigation.

but the department and mr. benczkowski won't say that. there has been no meaningful answer to these questions. why won't they just say that? he will be recused. that should be easy. it gets weirder. benczkowski has his own russia-trump angle. after the election with his old boss sessions tapped to become attorney general, benczkowski volunteered for the trump transition team, leading the so-called landing team at d.o.j. it was on his way out the door from that role, heading back to his law firm, that benczkowski told sessions he was interested in securing a political appointment in the department of

justice. roll forward two months to march, 2017, when benczkowski got a call from one of his law partners. the firm was representing the russian alfa bank against allegations alfa bank was serving as a back channel to the trump organization. alfa bank is one of russia's largest banks and its owners reportedly have long-standing ties to vladimir putin. the partner wanted to know could benczkowski, fresh off the trump department of justice transition team, help the russian bank? benczkowski joined the firm's alfa bank legal team. the next month, in april, 2017,

benczkowski was contacted by the attorney general's office to ask whether he would like this job to head up the department's criminal division. press reports as early as may 4 indicated that benczkowski was likely to be tapped for this criminal division job. surely, surely a person of sound judgment at this point would have stopped representing a russian bank that might be under d.o.j. investigation for secret ties to the president. surely, but no. rather than withdraw from his representation, benczkowski expanded his portfolio with alfa bank to review the now-famous and widely verified steele

dossier. the steele dossier has been a feature in the only in the russia-trump collusion investigation, it has also been a feature of republican political efforts to discredit and besmirch the collusion investigation. benczkowski's new portfolio was to advise whether alfa bank, the russian bank, should file a defamation suit against publisher buzzfeed for disclosing the steele dossier, which alfa bank subsequently did in new york state court. there is more. benczkowski's nomination to this position triggered confirmation obligations to disclose information to the senate judiciary committee about his background, publy occasions, and

clients. this client was a putin-tied russian bank, and benczkowski's work related to the red-hot steele dossier. so obviously he disclosed this client relationship. actually, not. benczkowski's senate judiciary questionnaire included no mention whatsoever of the russian bank. only when democratic senators reviewed benczkowski's confidential f.b.i. background report did questions arise about his relationship with alfa bank and his review for this russian client of the steele dossier. benczkowski explained the troubling omission, telling us

he had been forbidden by his firm's confidentiality agreement from disclosing his work for alfa bank. some people would have thought his obligations of disclosure to the senate mattered more than obligations of nondisclosure to such a client. and these disclosure issues are customarily waived by clients in these circumstances. or the nominee can withdraw. you don't just fail to list such a client. but that's what he did. mr. benczkowski was voted out of the judiciary committee on a party-line vote a year ago, a year ago. now, with the russia-trump investigation heating up, with significant new potential cooperating witnesses, and with millions of pages of new

documents available to the department of justice from michael cohen, now republicans bring this nomination forward. particularly this week when the country has turned its focus to the supreme court announcement, an announcement obviously likely to dominate the news cycle, this bizarre nomination gets called up here for a vote. it's almost like they don't want people watching while this happens. this is a nomination that should fail on qualifications alone. in the long history of the department of justice, there has never been so unqualified a nominee, in my view. in the name of the 700 career prosecutors in the criminal division who deserve an experienced and capable leader

at their helm, in the name of the crime victims, our criminal laws, and their enforcement are intended to protect, i urge my colleagues to vote no just on qualifications, but this goes beyond an unqualified nominee. this is a nominee exhibiting a flashing array of warnings that there may be mischief afoot here. no senator should take this vote unaware of these obvious warnings. why somebody so unqualified? why somebody so politically connected to the attorney general? why right now, right in the middle of constant interference by president trump and his legal team and constant interference

by house republicans with this investigation? now we put someone in who won't say they will recuse themselves, who will have a window into this investigation, who will have the power to interveer with this investigation -- interfere with this investigation. that seems like a lot to let pass here. in the name of the integrity and independence of the department of justice, senators should vote no because of the contamination risk mr. benczkowski poses, even if he were qualified for the post. this combination, mr. president, of lack of qualifications, flagrant, flat-out unqualified nominee here, and risk of contamination in an environment in which there are abundant

political efforts to interfere with this investigation, that is a combination no senator ought to accept, not for this man, not for this job, not at this time. if mischief is afoot, and if these dark prospects should come to pass, senators, we will have been warned. we will have been warned. i yield the floor, mr. president, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all postcloture time on executive calendar 639 be considered expired at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow and the senate precedely vote on the nomination. if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that following disposition of the nomination, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the ney nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume

legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that notwithstanding rule 22 at 12:00 noon on wednesday, july 11, the senate proceed to legislative session and the chair lay before the senate the message-to-a company h.r. 5895. further, that the majority or his designee be recognized to make a compound motion to go to conference and that the senate peedly vote on the motion. further that if the motion is agreed to, senators cass i did and corker -- cassidy and corker each be recognize for a motion to instruct conferees and the senate vote on the motions in the order lists with not further action on the compound motion and there be two minutes of debate between each vote equally divided in the usual form and that l ting disposition of the corker motion, and the appointment of conferees, the senate resume executive session. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. con. res. 41 submitted he recall whyer today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate condition current resolution 41 recognizing 100 years of the united states-australian relationship, 100 years of matship. -- mateship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, july 11. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. i ask that following leader remarks, the senate resume

consideration of the benczkowski nomination and that all time during adjournment, leader remarks and morning business count postcloture on the nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the the u.s. senate confirmed mark bennett to be a judge on the court of appeals. they also voted to go to conference on the defense authorization bill. tomorrow more work on executive branch nominations. there's a number of senate floor speeches about the president's nomination of bret cavanaugh to the u.s. supreme court. mitch mcconnell leads off the comment. >> president trump has made a superb selection to serve as associate justi