the presiding officer: we are not. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session and the chair lays before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 5895 which the clerk will report. the clerk: resolved that the house disagree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r.

5895 entitled an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes and ask a conference with the senate on the disagreeing votes of the two houses thereon. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i move that the senate now insist on the amendment, agree to the request of the house for conference, and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on the part of the senate. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. a senator: i have a motion to instruct conferees at the ask and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from look la mr. cassidy moves that the managers on the part of the senate on the conference on the

disagreeing votes on the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 5895 be instructed to insist that the final conference report include provisions that have the effect of extending the national flood insurance program and the authority of the administrator of the federal emergency management agency to issue votes and obligations with respect to that program through january 31, 2019. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i have a motion to instruct conferees at 9 desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. corker, 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. 5895 be instructed to include language providing a role for congress in making a determination under section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962, 19u.s.c.

1862. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes equally divided on the cassidy motion. mr. cassidy: mr. president, very briefly, this is a simple six-month reauthorization of current law which will allow continued work for a longer term reauthorization. it protects american families and the u.s. taxpayer from the consequences of a lapsed program during peak hurricane season. i urge its adoption. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the jayce on the motion -- the yeas on the motion are 95. the nays are 4. the motion is agreed to. there are now two minutes equally divided on the corker

motion to instruct. will the senate be in order. will senators clear the well. the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, i rise to speak in favor of this amendment where congress would have an appropriate role in section 232 of the trade act as invoked on national security grounds. this is something that anybody who supports the senate playing its proper role should support. i want to thank senators toomey and flake and 15 other senators who support this overall effort. this is a baby he step and good direction for the united states senate and for our country. mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: you all know where i stand on section 232 steel tariffs. i support them because thousands of steel workers across the country lost their jobs due to

chinese steel overcapacity. tough trade enforcement against china cheating has long been overdue. these tariffs are a tool to bring china to the table and get long-term structural changes to support american jobs. my colleagues know i strongly oppose the corker-toomey legislation which would undo the tariffs, would let china off the hook, and would gut the section 232 statute. that's why i stood on the floor two weeks ago to block that. what we're considering today is different. with this motion to instruct, the senate will reaffirm that it has a role in section 232 determinations. of course we should. that's why i talk regularly with secretary ross and ambassador lighthizer throughout this process. i will vote for the motion to instruct not because i think it makes sense to consider trade policy on an appropriations bill that has nothing to do with tariffs, but because of course congress should have a role in

232 determinations. it should have a role in all trade policy. i've been saying that for years. i'm glad my colleagues -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. brown: ten seconds, madam president. poeup without objection. mr. brown: today's vote is not a vote for undermining the trade agenda, not a vote to rescind steel tariffs. i'll do everything in my power to defeat any efforts to do that. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: if there is any time remaiming let me stress this vote is a move to restoring our constitutional authority and ultimately if we do that right, to revisiting the misuse of the 232 provisions of our trade law which is applying inappropriate tariffs on steel and aluminum from our allies and close friends. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 88, the nays are 11. the motion is agreed. the chair appoints the following on conferees on the part of the senate on the disagreeing votes of the two houses. the clerk: shelly, cleakser, boozman, daines, leahy, feinstein, schatz and murphy. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume executive session. the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: i have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i want to take a few moments to

talk what i believe is an excellent choice president trump made monday and that is in selecting judge bret kavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh to fill the supreme court vacancy. his credentials is well suited for the supreme court. he excelled as an undergraduate and law student at yale and clerked for justice kennedy, the man he would replace, along being a clerk for the federal appeal court judges. he served in a critical position in president george w. bush's administration, and beyond his resume is respect and effectiveness. he is highly regarded by his colleagues on the federal judiciary, and i think that says a lot about his potential and his character in terms of potential to become a supreme court justice. he is also impressed others over his long and very prestigious career.

we saw a wonderful family on monday night. you can tell they are very proud of their dad and their mom. i was really honored to have the opportunity to meet all of them along with judge kavanaugh's parents. he's been very effective. as a matter of fact, the supreme court -- this supreme court has adopt his reasoning in their opinions on 11 separate occasions, and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal judges all across the country. but perhaps judge kavanaugh's most qualifying characteristic is something i heard him say at the white house on monday evening. when the president announced his nomination, judge kavanaugh committed to being open-minded in the cases that come before him as a supreme court justice. open-minded. i think that's critical. and his record backs up that commitment. he has a long an clear record of fairly applying the text of our constitution and our laws. he is, i think -- there will be

a lot to consider under judge kavanaugh because he has such a long and very clear record of writing and the president mentioned his very concise writing skills. when i consider nominees for the supreme court, i don't look for a person who promises particular policy outcomes or someone who is out to actually create laws. what i look for is a person who reflects experience, fairless, and a respect for the -- fairness and a respect for the constitution as it is written. that is because the contusion a -- constitution assigns the legislative authority to us, to its elect representatives in the congress. accountability to the american people is diminished when unelected judges pursue their own policy goals. a newspaper in the northern panhandle of our state editorialized today, and i quote, kavanaugh has said that if confirmed to the supreme court his allegiance will be to the constitution as it is

written, not to his personal preferences. that is precisely what the nation needs. end of quote. another editorial appearing in west virginia today, this one from the -- from the daily mail said, quote, a conservative supreme court justice interprets the constitution for all, not just those on the left or those on the right. i believe judge kavanaugh truly understands a judge's and a justice's proper role and i think no one puts that better than the judge himself. i want to read a portion of a speech that he gave last fall and i begin quoting. one overar muching goal for me is to make judging a more neutral process in all caseses, not just statutory interpretation. the american rule of law, as i see it, depends on neutral, impartial judges who say what the law is, not what the law should be.

judges are umpires and at least should always strive to be umpires. in a perfect world, at least as i envision it, and, again, these are judge kavanaugh's words, the outcomes of cases would not often vary based solely on the backgrounds, political affiliations or policy views of the judges. this is the rule of law as the law of rules the judge as umpire, the judge who is not free to roam in the constitutional or statutory forest as he or she sees fit. in my view, judge kavanaugh's view too, this goal is not merely a preference of mind, but a constitutional mandate in a separation of powers system. end of quote. i believe that judge kavanaugh and i share the belief that faithfulness to the text of the law as written, not the pursuit of a particular policy outcome, should be the goal of the judge. in the same speech last year that judge kavanaugh gave, he

discussed his meetings with west virginia -- then-west virginia senator robert c. byrd during his confirmation process to the d.c. circuit. most west virginians and americans know, i think, that the reverence that senator byrd had for the constitution. during his speech judge kavanaugh spoke of reading the text of article 1 with senator byrd and senator byrd was among the democrats who voted to confirm judge kavanaugh to the d.c. circuit. i think that judge kavanaugh's record on the d.c. circuit and his experience merit a bipartisan confirmation conference, the same type of bipartisanship that senator byrd showed when he vowed for judge -- voted for judge kavanaugh. the confirmation process for a well-qualified supreme court nominee does not have to focus on trying to guess how justice kavanaugh might rule in a particular case. as a matter of fact, i think

that would be a futile exercise and quite damaging to the process at the same time. if we're looking for a fair umpire, there's no reason that a nominee with a strong record of applying the text of the constitution and the law should not be confirmed with overwhelming support. president trump made clear in his campaign that he would appoint journals with respect -- judges with respect of the constitution. i believe he kept his commitment when he nominated brett kavanaugh to become a supreme court justice. the process is just beginning. we're in a process where judge kavanaugh's record will -- will be scrutinized to the enth degree. we will have be having hearings and i hope that all of us, including me, will have the opportunity to sit down one-on-one to talk about judge kavanaugh to talk about his qualifications and his abilities

in terms of becoming a supreme court justice. i look forward to advancing the process and i look forward to meeting with judge kavanaugh myself. and with that, i yield back. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. first i would like to associate myself with the remarks of the outstanding senator from west virginia. we had a chance to be together on monday night when the president announced the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to serve on the u.s. supreme court and i agree with my colleague from west virginia that it is a fantastic choice. i said before that there are three things that i want to see in any nominee for the court,

the appropriate judicial philosophy, a strong intellect, and a solid character. and everything that i've seen so far confirms that judge kavanaugh satisfies all three of these requirements. so, mr. president, i'd like to talk today about a few things i think we can expect to see over the next couple of months. first, i think it's safe to say that throughout this process, judge kavanaugh will not announce how he's going to rule on cases that might come before him on the supreme court. mr. president, you and i know as we walk back from the visit at the white house and we're heading home after having a chance, you and i, to visit with the president of the united states before he actually told the country that judge kavanaugh would be the nominee that that's a very appropriate thing for the judge to do, to not announce how he's going to rule on cases that might come before him on the supreme court. in fact, the ethics rules say that it's exactly what a nominee

should do, should avoid making these sorts of comments. the rules say that judges should not answer questions about how they would rule on a case that they might consider president. so i expect judge kavanaugh will follow the rules and not get into specifics over which side he may favor. it's what ruth bader ginsburg did during her confirmation process in 1993. she said a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints. no hints, no forecasts, no previews. she said that this would, quote, display disdain for the entire judicial process and she was confirmed. that's the ginsburg standard. every nominee since then has followed that standard. the second thing i expect to happen is that democrats are going to complain that judge kavanaugh follows the ginsburg

standard. we've heard it already. they're going to complain that we won't -- that he won't promise to take their side in cases that might come up before the court. they're going to complain and have already that some of the cases he's decided in the past didn't work out the way that they wanted them to work out, not what the law said, not what was right but what they wanted. it's what democrats and the judiciary committee did when neil gorsuch was nominated to the supreme court last year. we've seen this movie before. we know the playbook. they've criticized him for some of his rulings that they didn't like, even though the rulings followed the law, they didn't like the ruling so they criticized the judge for following the law. they suggest he should have ignored the law, sided with the little guy, the sympathetic side in a case regardless of what the law had said. judge gorsuch knew the same thing that judge kavanaugh knows. judges are absolutely not

supposed to consider who they think is sympathetic in a case, where the empathy lies. it's where the law lies. they're supposed to be making decisions and rules based on the law. federal judges actually swear and oath. the oath is to administer justice without respect to persons and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. that's what judge kavanaugh has done during his 12 years as a member of the d.c. circuit court. the minority leader, senator schumer, has already said not good enough for him. not good enough for senator schumer. he wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" on july 2. he wrote this op-ed before the president had even made a decision as to who he might nominate. at the time the president was considering a number of names. didn't matter to senator schumer. he made it clear that he's going to fight any mainstream nominee unless he could confirm that the nominee will rule in a certain

way. judges don't do that. judges shouldn't do it. well, that's the litmus test now of the liberal democrats in the united states senate. they're going to try to make people believe that they know how judge kavanaugh is going to rule on the supreme court. when president obama was picking people to serve as judges and justices, he said he was looking for people who decide cases -- these were his words -- based on empathy. president trump has consistently selected judges and we've approved and confirmed quite a few now, mr. president, as we've been here since president trump has taken office, judges and justices who decide cases based upon the law and the constitution of the land. judge kavanaugh is exactly that kind of a judge. he understands that writing the laws is not his job, hasn't been his job on the circuit court. would not be his job on the supreme court. he gave a speech last year in which he said that congress and

the president, not the courts, possess the authority and the responsibility to legislate. let me repeat that. congress and the president, not the courts, possess the authority and responsibility to legislate. now, the third thing that i expect to happen in this whole process is that we will vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination before the next supreme court session starts in october. it's what the american people want us to do. nbc news did a recent poll. they found that 62% of americans want us to vote on this nomination before the november election. only 33% said we should wait. but democrats want to delay. they want to delay the process. the american people are saying get on with it. it's early july now. we're going to work through the month of august. it gives us plenty of time to consider this nomination. when you look at the people serving on the supreme court

today, you know, we typically spend about 66 days to confirm each of them. that's going to put it around the middle of september. there's no reason we need to take any longer than that. judge kavanaugh has been through this process before, been confirmed by the senate before. he was confirmed to the circuit court by a vote of 57-36 in this body. four democrats supported his confirmation. he served on the circuit court for over 12 years, has written a number of rulings, i think over 300. his background as a judge gives us powerful evidence of the kind of justice that he will be. he's going to take the law and the constitution at face value. he's not going to treat them like blank pages on which he can rewrite the law in his own making, to his own wishes. in his speech last year, he made it very clear. he said the judge's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy.

this view and every example i have seen from judge kavanaugh's record is squarely in the mainstream of american legal thinking today, squarely in the mainstream. he's smart. he's fair. i believe he's very well qualified. regrettably, none of this matters to some of the democrats. they're going to use the same scare tactics that they use every time a republican president nominates someone to the supreme court. mr. president, they did it 40 years ago when president gerald ford nominated john paul stevens to the court. liberals accused him of, quote, antagonism to women rights wh. president reagan nominated justice kennedy 31 years ago, the justice just retired from the court, democrats said of his nomination that the nomination, quote, should be unsettling, they said, to those concerned with the health and legal status of women in america. mr. president, they've been using the same old lines for more than 40 years.

it's never true. it's never reality. but apparently for the democrats it never gets old. i hope the democrats in the senate will give judge kavanaugh a chance. i hope that they will take the time to consider his qualifications and they will actually sit down and talk with him before they rush to condemn him, although quite a few had rushed to condemn him even before the president had decided and he was named to the court. so i also look forward to sitting down with the nominee and exploring some of his views more fully, but everything i have seen so far suggests to me, mr. president, that it's going to be a very good conversation and that judge kavanaugh would make an excellent justice of the supreme court. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, today i rise to oppose the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. and this is an issue that i will return to in the coming weeks and months at greater length, but i did want to say a few words about why i am in opposition to mr. kavanaugh. i think many americans have a pretty good sense of what the function of congress is, what the president of the united states does, but in fact i think many americans do not fully appreciate the role that the supreme court plays in our lives in the past decade alone, the supreme court has issued some incredibly controversial and, to my mind, disastrous decisions

that have had a profound impact on the lives of the american people. and let me just review for a moment why this nomination is so very important by looking at what the supreme court, often by a 5-4 vote, a one-vote majority, has done in recent years. mr. president, if you go out onto the streets of, i this i, any community in the -- of, i think, any community in the united states of america, whether it is a conservative area or a progressive area, what most people will tell you is that we have a corrupt campaign finance system, a system which today, as we speak, allows billionaires to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy

elections. and most americans, whether they are democrats or republicans or independents, do not think that that is what american democracy is supposed to be about. what most people think is majority should rule. sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. but everybody gets a vote, not a situation in which billionaires can spend unlimited sums of money to support candidates who represent their interests. but that is in fact what goes on right now. and many americans may think, well, that was a decision made by congress, made by the president. not so. that disastrous decision, which is undermining american democracy, came about by a 5-4 vote of the united states supreme court in the citizens

united case. that is what a supreme court decision can do. it can undermine american democracy and create a situation where the very wealthiest people in this country can buy politicians and influence legislation. mr. president, several years ago the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but the court also ruled that the medicaid expansion, as part of the affordable care act, had to be optional for states. i'm on the health, education, labor committee that helped write that bill, and i can tell you, there was almost no discussion beneficiary i don't recall any discussion -- there was almost no discussion, i

don't recall any discussion -- about whether that legislation would apply -- elements that have legislation would apply to every state in this country. but the supreme court ruled that that was not the case. and they said that the decision of expanding medicaid was up to the states, and today we have 17 states in our country that still have not expanded medicaid. and what that means in english, in real terms, is today there are millions and millions of people in 17 states in this country, people who are ill, people who can't afford health care, people who can literally dying because they don't go to the doctor when they should, and that is all because of a decision of the united states supreme court.

but it is not only the issue of campaign finance or the issue of medicaid and health care where the supreme court has acted in a disastrous way. i think everybody knows that our country has a very, very shameful history in terms of civil rights, and it has been a very long and hard struggle for us to finally say that in america, regardless of the color of your skin, regardless of your economic position, you have the right to vote. not a radical idea, but it is a struggle that very brave people fought for for many, many decades. in 1965, u.s. congress finally

passed the voting rights act, which had the impact of eliminating racial discrimination in voting. and that act passed by congress had been reauthorized multiple times since. in other words, what congress said is that everybody in this country has the right to vote regardless of the color of your skin. but in 2013, the supreme court -- again by a 5-4 vote -- ruled that parts of the voting rights act of 1965 were outdated and they struck down a major, major part of that law which guaranteed that all americans

had the right to vote. and literally days after that decision was rendered by the supreme court, officials in state after state after state responded by enacting voting restrictions targeted at african americans, poor people, young people, and other groups of citizens who don't traditionally vote republican. literally days after that supreme court decision. state officials said, wow, we now have the opportunity to make it harder for our political opponents to vote -- and they moved very, very quickly with restrictive voting rights laws. and that was -- the situation

was created by once again a 5-4 vote by a conservative supreme court. and just this year -- just this year -- we saw the supreme court rule against unions in a really outrageous decision in the janus case, designed to weaken the ability of workers, public employees, to negotiate fair contracts. just this year we saw the supreme court uphold president trump's muslim ban and other important pieces of legislation. this is already a supreme court that, given the option, will rule as they have time and time again, often by a 5-4 vote, in

favor of corporations and the wealthy against working people, who will continue to undermine civil rights, voting rights, and access to health care, who are edging closer and closer to ruling that a person's religious beliefs should exempt them from following civil rights laws. so having said that, let me just say very briefly why i oppose the nomination of judge kavanaugh. as it happens, i do not usually believe anything that president trump says because i think, sadly, he is a pathological liar. but i do think this is a moment where we should believe one thing that he said during the campaign.

i think in this instance he was actually telling the truth. and during the campaign, he was asked if he wanted to see the court overturn roe v. wade, the landmark decision that protects a woman's right in this country to control her own body, and he responded to that question -- and i quote -- well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be, that will happen. and that'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because i am putting pro-life justices on the court, end of quote. that's donald trump during the campaign. on a separate occasion, as many may recall, trump suggested that women who have abortions should be punished.

so i have very little doubt that while he may evade the question of whether or not he wants to overturn roe v. wade, i have zero doubt that he would not have been appointed by donald trump unless that is exactly what he will do. mr. president, as i think we all know, president trump put forth a list of 25 potential justices, all of whom were handpicked by the heritage foundation and the federalist society. these two extreme right-wing groups claim that they have, quote, no idea, end quote, how any of the people on that list would rule on roe v. wade. but overruling roe has been a

republican dream for 40 years. please do not insult our intelligence by suggesting that it is possible that any of these candidates could secretly support a woman's right to control her own body. that will not be the case. so that brings us to judge kavanaugh. mr. president, you may remember, last year the federal government was sued by an undocumented teenage girl. they were keeping her in detention in texas. she discovered she was pregnant while in detention and tried to obtain an abortion. judge kavanaugh wanted to force her to delay the proceeding, presumably until it was no longer legal under texas law for her to obtain an abortion in that state. when he was overruled by the full d.c. circuit, he complained in a dissent that his colleagues

were creating a right to, quote, abortion on demand, end quote. does that sound like someone who is going to strike down state laws that create undue barriers to abortion access or does it sound like somebody who had no problem with forcing a teenage girl to carry a pregnancy to term? there is also another case percolating out of texas which could have even graver consequences for tens of millions of americans. the state of texas and 17 other republican states have sued the federal government, claiming that the affordable care act is unconstitutional and the department of justice under donald trump agrees with them.

now, while i do not know how judge kavanaugh would rule on this case -- nobody could, of course, know that -- i will note that in another case about the a.c.a. he suggested that the president could simply refuse to enforce laws that he deems unconstitutional, regardless of what the courts say. and what we are dealing with here is literally a life-and-death decision regarding preexisting conditions , regarding the issue of whether you have today cancer or heart disease or diabetes or some other life-threatening illness. before the affordable care act, an insurance company could say to you, oh, you have a history of cancer. we're not going to insure you because we can't make money out

of you because the cancer might recur again. or you're too sick and we're going to lose money on your case. we're not going to insure you. or if we do hen sure you, your rates are going to be five times higher than somebody else of your rage. and one of the -- of your age. and one of the major achievements of the affordable care act supported by 90% of the american people is that we must not end the protections that the american people have today against insurance companies who would bring back preexisting conditions, who would discriminate against people who were ill. and it is very likely, mr. president, that that case will come before the united

states supreme court. 90% of the american people say we should not discriminate against people who have cancer or heart disease. insurance companies should not be allowed to deny them coverage or raise their rates to a level that people cannot afford. but the trump administration has supported the argument of the republican governors, will not defend the a.c.a. in court. that will come to the supreme court unless i am very mistaken, judge kavanaugh will vote with the right wing majority and allow discrimination against people who have serious illnesses to once again be the law of the land. mr. president, time and time again judge kavanaugh has sided with the interest of corporations and the wealthy instead of the interests of ordinary americans. he has sided with electric power utilities and chemical companies over protecting clean air and

fighting climate change. he argued, if you can believe it, that the consumer financial protection bureau, which has saved consumers billions and billions of dollars from the greed and illegal behavior of wall street and financial institutions, he argued that that bureau was unconstitutional because its structure did not give enough power to the president. he has argued against net neutrality. he dissented in an osha case arguing that sea world should not be fined for the death of one of its whale trainers because the trainer should have accepted the risk of death as a routine part of the job. mr. president, while nobody can predict the future, we can take a hard look at judge kavanaugh's

record and extrapolate from his decisions what kind of supreme court justice he will be. and i think that the evidence is overwhelming that he will be part of the 5-4 majority which has cast decision after decision against the needs of working people, against the needs of the poor, and against the rights of the american people to vote freely without restrictions. so, mr. president, this is an issue i will return to. but i just want the american people to understand that when they hear this debate taking place here and think well, same old same old, people yelling at each other, this is an enormously important decision

which will impact the lives of tens and tens of millions of people. and i hope very much that the american people become engaged in this issue and learn about judge kavanaugh's record and join with us, those of us who are in opposition to his nomination. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. # quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i come to the floor today to raise concerns, concerns both about the next vote we will take, a vote that will or will not confirm president trump's nominee, brian allen benczkowski to lead the criminal division of the united states department of justice to be the assistant attorney general supervising the department of criminal justice, a division of criminal justice, and to express my concern about our president's actions at the nato summit and his upcoming meeting with vladimir putin, the president of the russian federation. let me start with mr. benckowski. i come to the floor today to speak in opposition to our proceeding to his confirmation. mr. benckowski has been nominated to serve as the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division at the united states department of justice. how big a division is that? 10, 50, 100? it's actually got 900 employees

and 600 career federal prosecutors. the u.s. department of justice takes up and handles, investigates, prosecutes cases of an unbelievable range and complexity of every district in the entire united states. and one would have to assume that to take on such a significant, such as important role as overseeing, supervising and managing 900 managers, 600 prosecutors, mr. benckowski must be very qualified to serve. as someone who is a member of the delaware bar and serves on the judiciary committee, i would hesitate to suggest that i have the qualifications because i never tried a criminal case in court. so i'm not sure how i would directly supervise a whole team of career federal prosecutors. but mr. benckowski has never prosecuted a case. he's never supervised a criminal

prosecution. in fact, he's not even ever appeared in federal court, by his own admission except for one or two limited occasions to address routine scheduling or other matters. mr. benckowski is here before us nominated to supervise the single largest, most complex, most sophisticated law firm in america for criminal matters on behalf of the people of the united states without relevant experience. in my view, that alone is disqualifying. that alone should lead us to pause in terms of whether we should confirm this man to lead the criminal division as an assistant a.g. virtually all of the last several senate confirmed a.a.g.'s for the criminal division have had extensive prior experience, prosecutors, former u.s. attorneys, career or elected, folks have either been within the department of justice or attorneys general and with good reason.

the federal government holds enormous power and discretion when it comes to criminal prosecutions and the assistant attorney general is responsible for overseeing offices that investigate and prosecute money laundering, fraud, organized crime, public corruption and a host of other serious offenses and it is that a.a.g. who ultimately signs off on some of the edgiest and more difficult decisions. every american should expect the person nominated for this job is qualified to meet the weighty demands of this job. second, mr. president, every american is entitled to the assurance that the department of justice is independent and that criminal prosecutions will rise and fall with the facts and the law and nothing else. sadly, mr. benckowski fails to pass this test too. he led the department of justice transition team for the trump administration. previously served with our now attorney general, former senator jeff sessions. but after leaving the transition

team for the trump administration, he then went on to private practice to a law firm where he alfa bank which has close ties to vladimir putin. mr. president, it's hard for me at times to believe how many people immediately around the president and his cabinet, his campaign team or him personally have had concerning inexplicable, difficult to understand ties to russian entities. to be frank, i'm concerned that mr. benckowski's position if he's confirmed by this senate in five minutes in a vote we are about to take could enable him to interfere with counsel mueller's investigation into russian interference. i've raised concerns about this, about ensuring that attorney general sessions fully complies with recusals for matters related to the last election and adding mr. benckowski to the mix in an absolutely central role as

the assistant attorney general overseeing the criminal division raises these concerns even further. adding another senior person to the justice department leadership team who raises these concerns about independence gives me real pause. i joined all of the senate judiciary committee democrats in a letter asking the administration to move mr. benckowski to some other position and send us a qualified, capable nominee without concerning russian connections. unfortunately the administration hasn't done that. my friends on the other side of the aisle seem poised to confirm this gentleman today. this concerns me more than ever because of what has just been said by our president in europe, to our vital nato allies. there's a number i've been holding in my heart this week, 1,044. 1,044. that is the number of nato troops who have died in combat in afghanistan serving shoulder to shoulder with the united states. president trump is correct to

raise the issue of contributions to our mutual defense. president trump has had a real impact. he's gotten our nato allies to up the ante by more than $14 billion in the last year and a half, and i wish he had gone to brussels and simply said thank you, folks, for increasing your contributions, and now let's focus on interoperability, deployability and on linking arm to arm and on facing our real adversary: russia. the nato alliance exists for mutual defense. how can you successfully defend when you can't successfully identify your real adversary? mr. president, i've just returned from a bipartisan trip to visit sweden and denmark, latvia and finland, two nato allies and two very close security partners. all four of these countries fight alongside us in afghanistan and have suffered combat deaths. two of those countries, first combat deaths since the second world war. when our president makes

misleading, mistaken comments that nato doesn't pay its fair share or is using us as a piggy bank, or as he said in a campaign-style rally in montana that nato is killing us, it really weighs upon the hearts of our vital allies who have sent their young men and women to serve alongside ours and in 1,044 cases to die. we need to respect our vital allies and recognize that for seven decades our nato allies and our security partners, whether the four i just visited with the republican chairman of the foreign relations committee, or the others among the 29 in nato, they are stepping up their investment. but they have already paid a price that few other countries have paid of sending their sons and daughters into combat alongside ours. and rather than questioning their commitment to our mutual security, i wish our president would celebrate that they've increased their investment, thank them for their strong

partnership and alliance and begin facing our country towards its true adversary: russia. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. senator: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: also, ask that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: