today's session of the u.s. sni senate go to get underway looking at paul may for the against department. 74-25 to advance his nomination. a confirmation vote is scheduled tofor 1:30 eastern today. and we could also hear about supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. live coverage now of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the source of our joy, thank you for hearing our prayers, for your mercy is

unending. strengthen our lawmakers that they may grow in grace and increase in their knowledge of you. give them courage to cry out against injustice, to lift the burdens and to break fetters. may they strive to transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows lord, remind them that your favor has a lifetime guarantee. use our senators as instruments of your glory. may your peace go with them as they seek to do your will on

earth, even as it is done in heaven. we pray in your loving name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. . mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, the president

of the united states made a superb choice. he chose to fill a place on the nation's highest court with one of the nation's brightest legal minds. judge brett kavanaugh brings unimpeachable academic credentials, as a student at yale and a lecturer at harvard. he carries over a decade of experience ruling from the nation's most consequential circuit court. along the way he's earned the admiration and praise of his peers, legal professionals with all manner of judicial and political philosophies for his professional abilities and his experience as well as qualities that simply go beyond his resume. nevertheless, the instant judge kavanaugh was announced, far-left groups and some of our own democratic colleagues here in the senate started pushing the same old scare tactics.

more than a week before the nomination, one democratic senator explained on cable news that president trump's nominee, whoever it was, whoever it was, would threaten, quote, the destruction of the constitution as far as i can tell. the president hadn't even named his selection, and already our entire system of government was on its last legs. give me a break. and this senator, by the way, serves on the judiciary committee. one left-wing group had an angry press release all ready to go for whomever the nominee would be. but after judge kavanaugh's nomination was announced, they forgot to fill in his name. they had the press release ready with a big blank there, and they

forgot to fill in the name. so they wound up decrying all the terrible things that would happen if we confirm the president's nomination on blank to the supreme court, and they sent it out. so, madam president, that kind of says it all. fill in the blank opposition. well, our democratic friends have learned judge kavanaugh's name by now, but the hysterical attacks haven't gotten any less desperate or any more sensible. no sooner are these silly attacks launched than they're beaten back by the facts. one of the flavors of the week was this outlandish claim that in a law review article he wrote 10 or 20 years ago, judge kavanaugh supposedly said that sitting presidents cannot be held accountable under the law. some far-left special interests

claim he said that. so did some congressional democrats. it was the perfect conspiracy theory. catnip for their far-left base. the only problem was it wasn't true. people who actually looked at these articles note that judge kavanaugh, quote, does not reach legal conclusion on issues of presidential accountability. if anything, he seems to arrive at the opposite conclusion of what's been alleged. professor noah feldman of harvard law school observed from a legal and constitutional perspective, judge kavanaugh wasn't saying that the courts should find that the president shouldn't be investigated or held accountable. quote, to the contrary, to the contrary, madam president, professor feldman observes that judge kavanaugh's logic seems to

comply that any president is -- imply that any president is open to being investigated and held accountable under the law. here's how professor feldman finished up his debunking of this unfair attack. this is what he said. trying to oppose him on logically backward grounds doesn't serve anyone's interests. "the washington post" fact checker jumped on the democrats' mischaracterization. it explained judge kavanaugh's scholarly articles actually contained, quote, a mainstream view on this constitutional question. they blasted the democratic rhetoric as, quote, an extreme distortion of what he has written. so let me sum that up. according to "the washington post," it is judge kavanaugh's analysis that is mainstream. it's the distortions of his record by congressional democrats and far-left special interest groups that are

extreme. you know, madam president, we have a word for blatantly misrepresenting the record and character of a judicial nominee in order to achieve a political objective. we call it an attempt to bork the nominee. it refers to how judge robert bork was slandered back in the 1980's when people both inside and outside the congress blatantly and shamelessly distorted his record to claim he'd do terrible things if confirmed to the supreme court. it's actually in the dictionary now literally. judge bork's last name is in the merriam webster dictionary as a verb. it means -- this is what bork means: to attack or defeat a nominee or candidate for public office unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism

orvilleification -- or vilification. to be borked is now in the dictionary. completely unfair vilification. looking back, most people agree now that this episode was grossly, grossly unfair, insulted the intelligence of the american people and stained the history of the united states senate. jeffrey rosen was a democrat who worked in senator biden's office on the democrat side during that episode. here's what he wrote a few years ago. he said i remember feeling that the nominee was being treated unfairly. senator kennedy set the tone with a demagogic attack. bork's record was distorted beyond recognition. it was bad for the country. this was a man named jeffrey

rosen, a democrat who worked in senator biden's office during this episode. and here's what a lawyer who helped lead the anti-bork effort wrote just last year. i regret, he said, i regret my part in what i now regard as a terrible political mistake. seized with guilt after all these years of having participated in this borking. because of that episode, he goes on,, quote, we have undermined public confidence in the judiciary. so there's widespread and bipartisan agreement that trying to bork judicial nominees is harmful to our democratic process and to our judiciary.

judge kavanaugh's impressive record, impeccable credentials, and his enormous bipartisan fan club of judicial peers and legal scholars all attest to the outstanding service he would render on the supreme court. i'm glad that outside fact checkers are already swatting down democrats' desperate attacks on his nomination. in a breaking news bombshell report just last night, we learned that judge kavanaugh enjoys america's past time. investigative reporters scoured his financial disclosures and learned that he and his friends buy tickets to baseball games and that he pays his bills.

so there's still plenty of silliness to go around. i urge every one of my colleagues to treat judge kavanaugh's record truthfully, treat the confirmation process with the respect that it and this institution in which we serve deserves. we need to act like a responsible united states senate. going through a confirmation process to the united states supreme court. now, madam president, on another matter, while judge kavanaugh's nomination has filled up the headlines this week, the senate continued to attend to important business. yesterday the senate voted to proceed to conference with the house on the first three of this year's appropriations bill. i understand the conferees are planning to meet as soon as

today. the day before we voted to go to conference on this year's defense authorization bill, and soon we'll do the same with respect to the farm bill. i'm proud that we're continuing to deliver on our commitment to bring regular order back to the appropriations process along with attending to the needs of our armed forces and confirming more of the president's nominees. let's keep this momentum going. i hope the collaborative bipartisan approach of chairman shelby and senator leahy and our subcommittee chairmen have brought to the appropriations process will continue to characterize our progress here on the floor as well. with continued hard work and steady cooperation, we can achieve our shared goal of funding our government through the regular appropriations process. now be -- now one final matter, the evidence keeps mounting that with republicans at the helm in the white house, the house and

senate, the american people are enjoying what amounts to the most proworker, opportunity economic moment in recent history. already in 2018, the number of americans who say it's a good time to find a quality job has risen to its highest level in at least 17 years of data on record. the jobs report released last week showed in june that the rate of hiring throughout the u.s. hit an 11-year high. and interestingly, american workers voluntarily -- voluntarily left their jobs at the highest rate in 17 years. what that means is -- and i'd like to drill down on that point for a moment -- is that during the obama administration, we heard a great deal of talk from our democratic friends about a phenomenon they called job lock. the idea was that many workers were trapped in jobs that did not pay enough or didn't take full advantage of their skills

because there weren't enough open opportunities to justify taking the leap and looking for a better position. well, republicans agreed with our democratic colleagues that we could build a better economy for middle-class workers. we just didn't think the tax increases and massive new regulations were the way to do it. and now following a year and a half of republican policies including historic tax reform, the voluntary quit rate hit 17-year high. workers now feel free to climb up the ladder and move on to bigger and better things. just one more data point. this economy is thriving, and republicans' bold agenda is helping make it happen.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the ney nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, paul c. ney jr. of tennessee to be general counsel. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you very much. madam president, i rise today to discuss a topic far too many of

my colleagues also had to face, yet another fatal mass shooting in their state. this time, it was in annapolis, maryland, our state capital. exactly two weeks ago on june 28 at about 2:30 p.m., a 38-year-old man who had a long-standing grudge against the "capital gazette" newspaper made good on his sworn threats. he entered the newspaper offices, headed to the newsroom, and by the time he was done, he had shot and killed five employees of this community newspaper. "the capital gazette" is the local paper of record in annapolis. it is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the united states. it traces its roots back to the "maryland gazette" and" the capital" was founded in 1884. this loss of life is personal to so many in annapolis and around our state. you need to understand that "the

capital gazette" is as much a part of the fabric of annapolis as the state government it covers. it is perhaps embodied in thomas jefferson's famous quote -- were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or a newspaper without government, i should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. so just two weeks ago, a man with a shotgun, a man who had made known his threats against this paper purposely entered the building which houses "the capital gazette" to kill people. let me take a moment to mourn those lost and to thank the first responders who first appeared on the scene literally 60 seconds after the first 9/11 call. location means everything in so many areas. this day two weeks ago, the fact that there were rurnl rurnl police officers down the street from "the capital gazette" offices down the street at the time the shooting started most definitely saved lives.

according to the annapolis police chief timothy altemeyer, within two minutes, the annapolis police department, the anne arundel county sheriff's department rushed into the offices and into the newsroom to apprehend the gunman. state and local law enforcement presence including the f.b.i., a.t.f., and many others soon arrived to support local officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously investigate the scene. i want to thank each and every one of those law enforcement officers from the individuals who rushed into the newsroom, not knowing what danger they might encounter to those helping to get others to safety, those gathering evidence to ensure nothing was lost in the bustle and chaos of the moment to those diverting traffic so people could be safely evacuated and the investigators could do their job safely. i thank each and every professional who did their job and contributed to this emergency response. we say often that our first responders when we run from trouble, they run to it in order to save our lives.

the manner in which these first responders handled this assignment under extreme circumstances, we owe them our thanks and our admiration. unfortunately, when faced with an individual intent on killing, lives were lost despite the swift response by law enforcement. among them was gerald fischman, 61, who was an editor with more than 25 years of service with "the capital gazette qq he was known at the newspaper and throughout the community for his brilliant mind and writing. most often, it was his voice and insightfulness that came through on the editorial pages of "the capital gazette." fischman was described as someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by telling hard truths. rob hiaasen, 59, as a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller who brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. rob was described as the coach

and mentor to many. according to former ""baltimore sun """ columnist susan rymer, e was so happy working with young journalists, he wanted to create a newsroom where everyone was growing. john mcnamara, 56, was a skilled writer and avid sports fan. he combined these passions in his 24-year career as a sports reporter at "the capital gazette." former sports editor jerry jackson said of mcin a march a, he could write, he could edit, he could design pages. he was just a jack-of-all-trades and a fantastic person. rebecca smith, age 34, who was a newly hired sales assistant known for her kindness, compassion, and love for her family. becca was described by a friend of hers -- a friend of her fiancee as the absolute most

beautiful person with the biggest heart and called her death a great loss to this world. wendi winters, age 65, was a talented writer. built her career on a public relations profession and journalist. she was well known for her reporting on the lives and achievements of people within the community. she was a proud navy mom and daughter. as we learn more about the details of the shooting from the survivors, it is clear that wendi herself saved lives during the attack. according to "the capital gazette"'s editorial that ran this past tuesday, wendi confronted and distracted the gunman with whatever she could find around her. the paper noted that wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defiance of her newsroom from the murderous assault. wendi died protecting freedom of the press. my heartfelt condolences and prayers continue to go out to the families of those who were killed in this attack.

they do not send their loved ones off to work that day knowing it will be the last day that they would see them alive. it isn't right, and it jeffrey should have happened. the surviving staff members also deserve our praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as journalists and respect for the fallen colleagues. during and after the attack, staff continued to report by tweets, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and documenting information as they could at other crime scenes. despite the grief, shock, anger, and mourning, surviving staff with the help from their sister publication "the baltimore sun," "capital gazette" and other reporters who wanted to lend a hand in helping journalists, they put out a paper the following day, friday, and they have done so every day since. this was known as grace under pressure. fittingly, the editorial page the day after the shooting was purposely left blank with just a

few words. the few words were today we are speechless. this page is intentionally left blank to commemorate the victims of thursday's shooting at our office. the staff promised that on saturday, the page would return to its steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinions about the world around them, and they might -- and that they might be better citizens. it has been incredible to witness the resilience of "the capital gazette" staff, the city of annapolis and an runedle county. i want to repeat something from "the capital gazette." wendi died protecting her friends but also in defiance of a newsroom under murderous assault. wendi died protecting the freedom of the press. as americans we have a certain rights and responsibilities

granted to us through the constitution which establishes the rule of law in this country. freedom of the press is central to the very first amendment of the constitution, and it is -- has often been flagrantly under attack since our nation's founding. today those attacks have become more frequent and literal spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that has an open season preventing the media from doing their job, investigating the stories that needed to be uncovered and bringing transparency to the haas of power whether they are in annapolis, washington, d.c., or elsewhere around the world. journalists, like all americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job. on this day two weeks ago, just as the public was learning about the shooting at "the capital gazette," i stopped into a meeting that my staffers were having with a group of students about gun violence and school

safety. since what happened in parkland and the episode in my own state, i have been meeting with students on a frequent basis to hear their concerns. in all circumstances the students have expressed to me their fear and frustration as to the safety within their schools. some are angry and all want to know when adults will finally start acting like adults and do something to keep them and their country face. without fail students have told me thoughts and prayers are simply not enough. thoughts and prayers will not protect them from bullets and they want congress to act. some of my colleagues have brought into the false rhetoric that there's nothing we can do about the random acts of gun violence. students in maryland and and your the country know this is not true. the american people also know this is not true. a recent cnn poll found that 70 americans back stronger gun safety laws. congress must act now to address

the epidemic of gun violence. we can ban bump stocks now. let us assure that all gun purchases have completed background checks. madam president, i understand the weapon used in the anap sis shooting was a shoot gun. it would not have been covered under the new laws. but if we pass sensible begun safety -- gun safety laws, we will save lives. i do want to say clearly that doing something does not mean arming educators or bringing more arms into our schools. teachers are hired to teach, not to be security guards. instead of putting guns in the hands of educators, we need to get them out of the hands of attackers in the first place. let me conclude with these words of one of the survivors of "the capital gazette" shooting. are she shared her thoughts on the july 1 opinion piece. she shared pretty succinctly

what she thinks needs to happen next in this country. she wrote, i watched john mcnamara die, i had to step over wenti winters to escape. what i want is action. i -- i'm not just talking to the president or our governor or our elected officials, i'm talking to every single person in this nation. we must do better. we must vote better. we must push for legislation so this doesn't feel normal. rob hassan, gerald fishman, rebecca smith, and wendy winters is dead because of shootings that i have lived through. the man bought this gun legally. his record of stalking had been expunged. even if he hadn't been he could have bought the gun he used. this shnot political.

i'm not asking for change as a liberal media puppet. i'm asking for something to be done for the sake of our humanity. i think, quite frankly, selena is speaking for many, many people in our community. we need to act for rebecca, wendi, john, gerald, and john, and thousands who have been lost to needless gun violence, congress must act. we need to protect the american people which is perhaps the most important task we have as lawmakers many we cannot stand by and pretend we are helpless and powerless to prevent a tragedy. we can do something powerful today. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. a senator: thank you. i rise to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. van hollen: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to honor the victims and the survivors of the terrible shooting at the capital gazette newspaper that occurred on june 28. and i want to thank my friend and colleague, senator cardin for his remarks earlier today on this floor and thank the senate for taking up a resolution in memory of the victims. our state of maryland and the country were horrified by the tragic attacks on one of our

great maryland institutions, "the capital gazette" newspaper, the local newspaper of our state capitol in annapolis that has been operating since 1827. it is your quintessential smalltown newspaper that serves annapolis, serves anne arundel county, but is also a newspaper read throughout the state of maryland. in that awful shooting, we lost five members of "the capital gazette." gerald phishman, rob hiaasen, john mcnamara, wendi winters and rebecca smith. gerald phishman was an editorial paper. he shed light on community issues. he was well known for his

inseichable curiosity and his love for family and his talent of writing extended to poems he composed for his wife, erica. rob hiaasen was a big man with a big presence who applied his considerable skills as a journalist to mentor others, but fellow reporters and students at the university of maryland college of journalism. he gave of his time and he gave of his talent. john mcnamara was a sports writer and sports fan, big fan of the universe r university of maryland terps. he covered everything from the orioles to local little league. he was also always generous with his time and known to many who follow sports around the country. sales assistant rebecca smith was strong and smart and a fixture at her fiance dwayne's

softball tournaments. she was also known to be unflailingly kind and always somebody who took the time to make people feel at home at the gazette. wendi winters had a great sense of humor and an incredible ability to pull stories out of just about anyone. her colleagues say she charged at the shooter, displaying the bravery and determination that she had so many times before in her life in saving the lives of others at the newspaper in the process. mr. president, community newspapers like "the capital" are more than just sources of news. they represent the lifeblood of our communities around the country and of our nation. they report on everything, big issues and small issues because no issue is too small if it affects people in a particular community. i think all of us know that these are the reporters that

stay out late at local council meetings. they are the folks who are at the p.t.a. meetings. they are the folks who are busy collecting news that's important to people in a local community. and this is a newspaper that has been at this for hundreds of years. mr. president, even after that awful shooting that day, the next day "the capital gazette" put out a newspaper. they put out a newspaper as they have every day since then with the help of fellow journalists at "baltimore sun" and elsewhere. they put out a newspaper that talked about the terrible shooting that they experienced at "the capital gazette" and a number that remembered the victims and thanked the first responders. mr. president, i do also want to salute the first responders, an incredible and brave response

from local, state, and federal agencies. at the local level they were on the scene within 60 to 90 seconds. had that not happened, you would have even more than the terrible loss that we saw that awful day. mr. president, it also should cause all of us to think again about measures we can take in our communities, in our states, and at the federal level about stopping the violence. one of the victims, gerald fischman who had been an editorial writer there had written earlier in the aftermath of the terrible shooting at the pulse nightclub in orlando. here's what gerald fischman wrote at that time. quote, of all the words this week, hopelessness may be the

most dangerous. we must believe there is a solution, a way to prevent another mass shooting. we must believe that we can find it if only we try a little harder. mr. president, i ask every member of the senate, every member of this congress, every elected official and every citizen, let's work harder to find a way to end the violence. there are things we can do to make sure that we reduced the chances and reduce the awful loss that we're seeing around our country both in mass shootings and daily violence. and so as we remember these victims, i ask that we dedicate ourselves to the mission of ending the violence. thank you, mr. president.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday i had the chance to meet with the president's nominee to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of justice anthony kennedy on the supreme court. and i'm pleased with the nominee that the president has chosen and after talking to him yesterday morning, i look forward to supporting his nomination and doing whatever i can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. my conversation with judge

kavanaugh refreshed my memory that we actually had met back in 2000 when i was attorney general of texas, and i was preparing to -- preparing to deliver an oral argument before the united states supreme court, something i'd never done before, but thanks to judge kavanaugh, he wasn't a judge at the time, paul clemen and ted olson, both of whom had been solicitor general of the until, they helped me get prepared and do the best job i could do, was capable of doing before the court, providing me a moot court opportunity. so it was good to catch up with judge kavanaugh. i followed his career closely. in the interim, obviously, he served as a circuit court judge on the d.c. circuit court. some might call it the second most important court in the nation. and that's primarily because it's located here in the district of columbia and most of the major cases involving

administrative authority, federal power end up finding their way one way or the other through the d.c. circuit court of appeals. so he's had a great judicial career over the last 12 years, written on a variety of topics. i would say that he's a pretty well known quantity. while you're going to hear a lot of demands for additional information, and i'm all for as much transparency as can be provided and senators certainly have a right to get their hands on as much information about the nominee and his qualifications, his background, how he might perform as a supreme court justice. i hope this doesn't turn into a delay of game tactic. he's had a long career in the government, worked at the white house as staff secretary, which for those who aren't familiar with that means he's the last person who sees a piece of paper before it's presented to the

president for signature. that doesn't mensa the publisher or the author of that paper. and many times it's really to make sure is that the -- that it's correct, that it's accurate, that it's been verified and authenticate and that he's the one who decides to turn it to the -- over to the president for the president to sign. and it could be major matters or minor matters but i hope we don't get to at that point where people say every document or e-mail that he happens to have been copied on or have seen somehow becomes essential for a senator before they can decide whether or not to support his confirmation. and i'm -- i want to also add that we've also had some senators come out and announce their opposition to the nominee before he was even announced. i think our friend from pennsylvania did that. in other words, announced his opposition to anybody that this

president might nominate to fill the vacancy of an on this kennedy. i hope we don't hear from people like that that. they've already made their decision and it really is just a waste of everybody's time and really an insult to the rest of the senators who are doing their due diligence and trying to perform their constitutional responsibilities when it comes to providing advice and consent on a nominee to the highest court in the country. many people are familiar with the arc of judge calf knauss career but let me just helpings a few things, lest it not be lost in all of the noise. he graduate with honors from yale and attended yale school, one of the elite universities and law schools in the country and clerked for two federal appellate judges. those are the types of jobs as the presiding officer knows that

are highly competitive and only the best of the best get asked to serve as law clerks to federal appellate judges and certainly to the supreme court. and then he went in private practice and worked in the white house counsel's office thereafter and finally as staff secretary that i mentioned a few moments ago before being confirmed to the federal bench here in washington. but i want to just step back for a moment because in the weeks ahead, we're going to have plenty of time to talk about his credentials and his experience and his decisions and we'll have plenty of time to parse all of the dissents, the concurrences shall the majority opinions he has written on the d.c. circuit court of appeals but i think it is also important to know the man, to know the person because unfortunately washington, d.c., has a way of chewing up people and that because their

personality and their humanity becomes separated from the political basis or ideological basis upon which people may oppose them. so i think it's important to know the qualities of this man and because it informs us about his character, which i hope we would all agree is an important element in the qualifications of a federal judge. well, judge kavanaugh is one that is active in his community, as we heard on the night his announcement -- the announcement of his nomination was made. he's known as coach "k" on his daughter's basketball team and acts as a lecture at his church, feeds meals to needy families and stewarts children at local -- and tutors children at a local elementary school. i don't know where finds the time to do all of those things.

one friend called him a regular old car pool dad. i think we all know what that is. it's a dad that drives the kids to school. that comment was reported in "the washington post." this friend wrote that those who know judge kavanaugh's character would render a unanimous verdict in his favor. he's the former captain of his high school basketball team, run the boston marathon, something i aspire to do -- i just made it through a half-marathon, never a full marathon, much less the boston marathon -- and he's won his court's annual 5k races. i've seen him over in anacostia when we've a race for charity that many of our senate offices participate in, and i believe i've seen him run in those 5k

races with his team. professionally judge kavanaugh known as a distinguished legal professional. but it's important to know that even amidst the hustle and bustle of a high-powered legal career, he found time to do a really lot important things. while in private practice he was head of a practice group devoted to protecting religious liberties. you know, you don't earn a big fee as a lawyer by advocating in cases involving religious liberties. typically these are cases where you volunteer your time because you believe in the right of the citizen to have their case heard by the courts. and particularly when it comes to religious liberties, judge kavanaugh's record is very crystal clear, but he has advocated on behalf of those regardless of their ability to pay whose religious liberties were at risk. he also wrote two briefs for the supreme court of the united states supporting the cause of religious liberty, including i

believe the case i mentioned earlier that i argued in the supreme court involving the santa fe independent school district that was sued by the american civil liberties union to prevent them from allowing a student to volunteer their time to offer an inspirational saying or a prayer before a football game in texas. he authored an amicus brief in support of that case. and when he's not volunteering for causes he believes in, obviously he is the father of two daughters, something near to my heart, as the presiding officer i know has two daughters as well. and he's been a mentor to many law students that he's taught over the years. his colleague jack goldsmith, a distinguished lawyer in his own right, at harvard described him as being many, many considerable strengths as a judge and mow tension justice and also as a person.

his former professor akeel amar, who supported hillary clinton in the last wreaks, wrote in the "new york times" that judge kavanaugh is a superb nominee who has already shown flashes of greatness. i believe the headline of that op-ed piece by professor amar talked about the liberal case for brett kavanaugh, and i appreciate his willingness to talk about the man and his professional credentials and not get bogged down in the polarized politics of judicial confirmations here in washington. he called the nomination of judge kavanaugh president presit trump's finest hour, his classiest move. that's pretty impressive. these just a few of the reasons why here in the senate we need to now move forward confidently and deliberately with the confirmation process. we will proceed thoroughly but

with expedition. it is, after all, our constitutional role now the president has discharged his constitutional role to offer advice and consent on the president's nominee. the president, i believe, has chosen wisely, just as he did for the vacancy created by the unfortunate death of justice scalia and neil gorsuch. -- in neil gorsuch. the president has chosen wisely again and i believe this honoree is deserving of this. there are some who said we 00 need to wait or that there's not enough time before the midterm election to confirm judge kavanaugh. well, that's a pretty transparent stalling tactic. justice kennedy said he is vacating the bench at the end of this month. so when the supreme court reconvenes on october 1, i believe it is the first monday

in october, it would be good to have that vacancy left by the retirement of judge kennedy filled with this nominee. so the idea that we can somehow put this off until after the midterm elections i think makes no sense, or if it makes sense, it makes sense only from the standpoint of stalling the confirmation process. i agree with our friend from connecticut, the senior senator from connecticut, who said recently that the senate should do nothing to artificially delay consideration of the next justice. i agree with him. since justice gorsuch and justice sotomayor were confirmed just 66 days from the time they were nominated, a similar amount of time should not be unreasonable for judge kavanaugh. and i am not suggesting it be exactly 66 days. it might be a few days earlier or a few days later, but just to

sort of orient everybody as to what the time frame we're talking about, if it were he have days, like justice gorsuch and justice sotomayor, that would mean we would vote to confirm judge kavanaugh on september 13, if my math is correct. well, we know that these judicial nominations, particularly for the supreme court of the united states, are hotly contested. and that's because on the left they see the court as an end run around the democratic process. that's -- in other words, what you can't win in an election and what you can't win in a debate and vote of congress, well, if you can get the court to do it, unelected, lifetime appointed judges, then you've basically won in advancing your policy position at the federal level.

and i would say that the opposite philosophy is one that was embraced by hamilton and madison who viewed courts as what they called the least dangerous branch because they viewed the courts as not being political and judges being impartial arbiters of the law. and letting the chips fall where they may. but on the left if they can't achieve their desired policy outcomes through the normal legislative process, well, doing it by lawsuit and by court decision becomes the means to their end. that's why they are so upset. i think about this president's nominee, because he is what i would call a traditional judge in the james madison-alexander hamilton mold. some believe judges have a very important job in our government,

but it is a limited job and role. in other words, the main responsibility for making public policy should fall on the shoulders of members of congress and the president because we stand for election. and if people don't like what they're doing, they can come knock on our door and they can say senator, we don't like what you're doing. we want you to change your vote or your point of view. and that's entirely appropriate. and if we don't, then they reserve the time-honored right to throw the rascals out. but you can't do that for a federal judge. and that's why their role under the constitution is circumscribed as interpreting the law and applying the facts to said law. but i understand why our friends across the aisle are disappointed. they were hoping that president hillary clinton would be filling this vacancy and they were

hoping that majority leader chuck schumer would be the one guiding that nomination through the senate. instead, they were disappointed, and i understand it. it's a normal human reaction that president trump won so he's the one making the nomination and that a republican senate led by majority leader mcconnell is the one guiding this nomination through. i can understand their disappointment. but it's no reason to drag your feet or to obstruct an orderly and thoughtful deliberative process when it comes to filling this vacancy. madam president, we're going to have a chance to talk about this topic a lot in the coming weeks, but on a separate note, i want to address the situation unfolding on the u.s.-mexico border. as of 7:00 a.m. this morning, we heard that the trump administration has now complied with a court order and completed the reunification of those children under the age of five

who immigrated here with their parents unlawfully. now those children have been reunited with their parents which i think we all should be grateful for. secretary azar of health and human services, secretary nielsen, secretary of homeland security, attorney general sessions and all those officials at the departments of health and human services, homeland security and justice have been working tirelessly to complete these initial reunifications. their goal has always been the well-being of these children and returning them to a safe environment. as we can see from this morning's report, the administration clearly needs the time to vet all the people. in fact, in some instances, they actually have to take d.n.a. tests to confirm the claim that the adult would brought the child across is in fact their biological parent. because we know that the

cartels, the human traffickers are very sophisticated, and if they could simply pair up an unaccompanied child with an adult and send them across the border claiming to be a family unit, they could basically navigate the gaps in our legal enforcement system against illegal immigration. over the next few weeks, we know federal officials will be working to reunite all other separated families as they should. this is one thing that we all agree on, republican, democrat alike. these families should be kept together. this is consistent with president trump's executive order as well as a bill that i've introduced along with other colleagues called keep families together and enforce the law act. as that bill suggests, there are two parts to it. one is treating families with compassion by allowing them to remain together. and also enforcing the immigration laws on our books.

they don't have to be mutually exclusive. and our bill will ensure that they aren't. it will allow parents to stay with their children in a safe facility while awaiting their court proceedings. in other words, a number of these children and these adults are claiming asylum in the united states. that could only be finally decided by an immigration judge. so what we'd like to do is move them to the head of the line and get them a hearing in front of an immigration judge on a timely basis. our bill would also set mandatory standards of care for family residential centers and keep children safe by requiring they be removed from the care of an individual that endangers their safety. but i would just say in conclusion, madam president, this is not a new problem. we know that the -- several of the countries in central america are basically in a meltdown

mode. in other words, gangs, violent organizations are threatening the safety and welfare of families in these central american countries. and what we saw in 2014 is what president obama called a humanitarian crisis when tens of thousands of these children unaccompanied by a parent were turned over to these criminal organizations and transported from central america all the way through mexico into the united states where they were then processed and placed with a sponsor here in the united states consistent with the law currently in effect. but this is not a new scenario. it's just that the cartels, the criminal organizations have found a new way to sir cup vent -- circumvent american law unless we change it, unless we fix it. and what they are hoping for

ultimately is that restoration of the catch and release policies of the past. what happens when people are not detained, when they're not presented before an immigration judge on a timely basis is they're given a notice to appear in the future and told come back for your hearing in months and maybe years later. well, it should surprise no one that the vast majority of those people don't show back up for their hearing. and so what's happened is the criminal organizations who profit from this business model and the people who illegally immigrate into the united states have basically gamed the system. and unless we're willing to stand up and to fix it, then shame on us. so this is really about two issues. one is compassionate treatment of the children, treating the adults with dignity and providing them a safe place, but also making sure that our laws are enforced. some of our colleagues across

the aisle have said, well, let's just abolish law enforcement at the border. let's abolish immigration and customs enforcement, abolish i.c.e. as it's cold. well, that would be a disaster of the first order. and how would we be maintaining fidelity with our oath to support the constitution and laws of the united states if we would not see to it that our law enforcement agencies like i.c.e. that perform important and necessary duties along the border and throughout the country were not there with our support to do the job we've asked them to do. so, madam president, i know there's been a lot of discussion about this legislation, but at some point patience ceases to be a virtue. and i would expect at some point there may well be an opportunity for one or more senators to come to the floor and offer this

legislation by unanimous consent. and we'll see who wants to be a constructive player in this process and who wants to object and obstruct our ability to fix this crisis at the border. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ie would. mr. grassley: before -- from iowa. grass before i speak, i have a motion approved by the majority and minority leaders for five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. that's asking unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, as we all know, the federal bureau of investigation is a

component of the department of justice. it is frequently described as the premier law enforcement agency in the country. the f.b.i.'s investigative authority has only grown and grown tremendously since its creation almost a hundred years ago. the bureau now covers everything from kidnapping to counterintelligence, public corruption to bank robbery and maybe a lot of things in between. its power is very substantial. and its jurisdiction is far-reaching.

it's a very important agency. because of that, the f.b.i. is subject to a lot of scrutiny. lately we've had a lot of folks around here seem to be mistaken -- mistaking the word "scrutiny" of the bureau with the word attacks on the bureau. but the oversight of the f.b.i. is not new and it's a constitutional responsibility of the congress at least to do oversight of every agency and the f.b.i. can't be excepted. so far from being out of bounds, it's then essential under oversight for the people's

elected representatives here in the congress to put the f.b.i. under a microscope. that is doubly true when the f.b.i. gets involved in election don't controversies. the more power the f.b.i. claims to carry out its responsibilities, the more closely it ought to be watched. under our government where the public i.s. business ought to be public, that statement i made -- just made ought to be common sense to everybody. in its criminal work, the f.b.i. is held accountable primarily by the court system. but when the f.b.i. secretly gathers information for intelligence purposes, the risk

of impropriety skyrockets. if the information is never going to be presented in the courts, like in a criminal matter, then who is going to be watching to make sure that the power together and use it is not being abused? that's why we need vigorous congressional oversight and strong inspector general scrutiny. lots of people say that the f.b.i. should be independent. i disagree. the f.b.i. needs to be objective and nonpartisan. it should be insulated from undue political pressure. if you want to call that independence, then i'll use that word. but it cannot be independent of accountability to the people's elected leaders.

civilian control of the military has always been a key safeguard to liberty for the same reasons. freedom is at risk if the f.b.i. can become a domestic intelligence service with free rein to -- free reign to weaponize information in secret. we've seen the risk of that in the text messages of peter strong and lisa paige. their contempt for both the people of this country and particularly their elected leaders should disturb everyone. abuses of power at the f.b.i. are why we have a term limit for the director of the f.b.i. that term limit is not there to protect the f.b.i.'s

independence. it is there to protect the people from the abuses that j. edgar hoover committed because he became too independent. he was accountable to no one. j. edgar hoover was feared by presidents, senators, and congressmen. while the director originally was selected by the attorney general, in 1968 congress made the position subject to presidential appointment and senate confirmation. in 1976 the congress established a nonrenewable 10-year term for the director. the senate judiciary committee published a committee report on that bill limiting the 10-year

term in 1974. it took a couple of years for the bill to pass the house. i want to quote from that report. the purpose of the bill is to achieve two complementary objectives. the first is to insulate the director of the f.b.i. from unique pressure being exerted upon him from superiors in the executive branch. the second is to protect against an f.b.i. director becoming too independent and unresponsive. end of quote. at the time, congress was grappling with the fallout of watergate and the decades of corruption and civil liberties abuses by that first director of

the f.b.i. j. edgar hoover, so hence the legislation. congress knew the f.b.i. had to be able to operate free of partisan interference but still be accountable to the duly elected leadership of the country including every member of congress in their constitutional role of oversight. certainly the f.b.i. director can't be a politician stooge, but history tells us that the bigger risk is in the other direction. whoever abused his powers to intimidate politicians and other political leaders. in a democracy, all of our leaders are ultimately accountable to the people. access to information about what

agencies like the f.b.i. are doing is essential to holding them accountable. transparency brings accountability. abuses multiply in secret. that's why congressional oversight, a responsibility of congress under the constitution, is key. the recent report of the department of justice's inspector general is a very good example. it describes behavior done in secret at the f.b.i. that simply cannot be defended when brought to light. first, the inspector general's report identified unacceptable messages sent on f.b.i. mobile devices and computer systems by

five of the 15 f.b.i. employees on the clinton e-mail investigation. those messages wreak with political bias. the report found that through such messages, these employees -- and i quote -- brought discredit to themselves, so sowed doubt about the handingeling of the investigation and impacted the reputation of the f.b.i. end of quote. one message explicitly suggest thed a willingness to take official investigative steps for partisan reasons, where there should be no partisanship. that message vowed to stop the election of donald trump. can you imagine an f.b.i.

employee in official capacity on official devices taking that approach and then claiming to be -- not to be biased? because of that message, the i.g. was unable to conclude that the f.b.i.'s inaction on the clinton e-mail matter for nearly a month prior to the election was free from partisan bias. the i.g. referred all five employees who expressed partisan bias to the bureau for the f.b.i. to consider potential disciplinary action. those messages show a bureau plagued by arrogance, disrespect for policy and norms, and disgust of democratic accountability.

the report found director comey's actions usurped the department's authority. it called his decision to publicly announce secretary clinton would not be prosecuted as extraordinary and insubordinate -- and those two words are quotes from the inspector general. director comey acted as if he was accountable to no one except himself. his subordinates also appeared content to ignore bureau and departmental policy and guidance, some apparently for their own personal interest. the inspector general also recently concluded that the f.b.i.'s former deputy, andrew mccabe, authorized the disclosure of information to a reporter.

that is information confirmed the existence of an ongoing investigation. the i.g. report faulted mccabe for violating long-standing department and bureau policy. there is a public interest exception to that policy, but the inspector general found mccabe authorized disclosure of the information to make himself, mccabe, look good. now, mccabe claims comey knew about it. but the f.b.i. will not release information that supposedly supports that claim. the f.b.i. did little to nothing to address what now appears to be a culture of unauthorized contact with the media. yet somehow every day you read

in the newspapers the f.b.i. stiff-arming congressional oversight at every turn. go to the newspapers, okay. congress wants the same information, no. as an example, on the one hand the f.b.i. stone walls legitimate requests from the people's elected representatives whom they hate, in the words of agent strzok. on the other hand, f.b.i. employees are accepting meals, sports tickets and golf outings from reporters. now the department and the f.b.i. are refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas while lecturing congress about the need to control access to sensitive information. and while the f.b.i. agents are breaking the rules by talking to reporters left and right, the

bureau goes after legitimate whistle-blowers who disclose waste, fraud, and abuse, according to law. the level of hypocrisy is staggering. the bureau was investigating secretary clinton for her use of private communications to transact public business. but the employees in the bureau who were handling that very investigation, including the director, did exactly the same thing. of course, these employees were not exclusively using a private server that was highly vulnerable to outside attacks. there is -- there truly is a difference in the order of magnitude. but the f.b.i.'s employees'

behavior could help explain their apparent lack of enthusiasm for investigating clinton's clear alienation of the federal records. after all, how could they accuse her of violating the federal records act when it appears they may have also been violating the very same law? these are only some of the examples in the inspector general's latest report that we had a hearing on before my judiciary committee a couple weeks ago. former director comey said his people didn't give a rip about politics, give a rip about politics is words from his mouth we can see clearly now that that is just not true. at least not for five top individuals involved in this very high-profile, very

important investigation. now they need to be held accountable for their actions. there is no place in the f.b.i. for the kind of arrogance displayed in those text messages. there is no place in the f.b.i. for the kind of political timing and calculations made by the former director. his subordinates openly discussed the enormous pressure they were under to close the clinton e-mail investigation before the political conventions that was completely improper. decisions at the f.b.i. need to be made on merit, not on a political calendar. the f.b.i. needs to stay out of politics. they need to submit to oversight and they need to focus on doing its job to regain its reputation

for objectivity. no one in this country is above the law. no one should be independent of accountability. especially not the f.b.i. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. a senator: thank you madam president. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. markey: excuse me. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. markey: i ask for a vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you. thank you, madam president. the retirement of supreme court justice anthony kennedy has created one of the most consequential vacancies on the high court that this country has ever seen.

there is a reason pundits have often referred to the supreme court as the kennedy court. his influence on so many politically salient cases cannot be overstated. during his 30 years on the supreme court, justice kennedy was often the swing vote in decisions decided 5-4 on a divided bench of the supreme court. these include some of the most historic cases in our nation's history. on a woman's right to choose, on environmental protections, on same-sex marriage. in 1992, justice kennedy wrote the controlling opinion in planned parenthood v. casey which reaffirmed roe v. wade's core holding that the constitution protects a woman's

right to make a fundamental decision about her own health care, including a woman's right to choose. in 2007, justice kennedy joined a 5-4 opinion in massachusetts v. the e.p.a. which held that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants under the clean air act and that the e.p.a. must regulate those emissions under that statute unless it can provide a scientific basis for its refusal to do so. in 2013, justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion in united states versus winsor striking down as unconstitutional the marriage act because it violated basic due process and equal protection principles by

extending certain federal benefits to oppose-section married kupls -- couples but denying those benefits to same-sex married couples. in 2015 justice kennedy wrote the landmark opinion in same-sex marriage in obergefell versus hodges which guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. and in 2016, justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion in whole woman's health versus hellerstedt which struck down a restrictive anti-choice law in texas because it put an undue burden on women's access to reproductive health care services. all of these decisions were decided by the single vote of a

single supreme court justice. that justice was anthony kennedy. the justice who succeeds anthony kennedy on the supreme court will have the opportunity to leave a deep and lasting mark on issues of the highest constitutional magnitude, issues that impact the health and freedom of women, the environment, lgbtq rights, consumer protection, labor protections, affirmative action, criminal justice, gun safety, and more. there are, without a doubt, important issues that will be decided. these will be the most important decisions of our generation, and this supreme court will be in a

position to make that history. justice kennedy's retirement handed president trump the opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise to shift the balance of power on the supreme court to the far right on these issues. so the president dusted off a preapproved list of candidates for the high court, a wish list prepared and presented to him by the ultraconservative federalist society. this is the same list of candidates that the federalist society assured president trump would satisfy his litmus test of overturning roe v. wade and striking down critical health care protections. this is the same set of candidates from which the president selected neil gorsuch to fill the late justice antonin

scalia's seat on the supreme court, the seat that senate republicans stalled when they violated all norms of senate procedure by refusing even to hold a hearing on president obama's nominee merrick garland. in the short time that justice gorsuch has been on the supreme court, he has proven himself to be every bit of the far right conservative justice that the federalist society promised that he would be. d.c. circuit court judge brett kavanaugh's name was on that federalist society wish list as well. and with the president's nomination of him to the nation's highest court, the president has found another federalist society approved jurist who he believes will pass his litmus test, and that should concern every single american.

brett kavanaugh is a judicial conservative's dream come true. a young jurist who will push the supreme court to the right for decades to come. his record on issues such as access to health care, consumer and environmental protections, and a free and open internet portend a rubber stamp for a conservative right wing agenda that would move us backwards as a nation. at the same time it is very concerning that judge kavanaugh, who once served as ken starr's top deputy in the whitewater and monica lewinsky investigations of president clinton, has since written that a sitting president should not be investigated for allegations of wrongdoing. should not be indicted or tried while he is in office, and should not have to participate

in civil legal proceedings until he leaves office. this from a veteran of ken starr's staff. leading the investigation against president clinton throughout the monica lewinsky investigations. it is no coincidence, therefore, that a president who now fears all of these legal actions would nominate a judge who could shield him from those legal actions. but perhaps the gravest concern that the kavanaugh nomination raises is the fate of roe v. wade. for 45 years roe has not just protected access to safe and legal procedures for women in our country, it has affirmed the constitutional right to privacy. roe recognizes that all

americans must be able to make their own personal health decisions based on their own beliefs, needs, and circumstances. judge kavanaugh's record on the d.c. circuit inspires no confidence that he will protect this fundamental right. he has supported restricting access to contraception and he recently would have forced an undocumented minor in texas to delay receiving a safe and legal termination of a pregnancy despite her taking all of the necessary steps to access that procedure under texas state law. if confirmed, judge kavanaugh will almost certainly have more opportunities to inject the government into women's decisions about their own bodies. over recent years state legislators across the country and their allies have pushed the

boundaries of restrictions on legal abortion. challenges to these laws are winding their way through the judicial system now and could certainly land in the welcoming arms of a nominee whom the federalist society have assured the president would reverse roe v. wade. confirming judge kavanaugh is an invitation for abg visits to continue -- activists to continue their crusade for women from making choices they choose to make, turning back the clock on women's health freedom and economic security. and let's be clear, overturning roe wouldn't end these procedures across this country. it would just end safe abortions

that women would have access to. those across the country who care about protecting individual liberty and autonomy in health care decisions, including access to safe and legal procedures, are galvanized and mobilized politically in a way we haven't seen in a generation. they are organized, and i believe they will bring that political power to bear in opposition to the kavanaugh nomination. our judicial system, but the supreme court in particular, has a special role in our democracy as a neutral arbiter of the law. the american people must have faith that this institution and its justices will uphold this sacred responsibility. and stepping back from a larger perspective, looking at the affordable care act, we have to ensure that ultimately protections for those with

preexisting conditions in the health care system that are guaranteed under obamacare are continued. every family in our country has somebody with a preexisting condition, and we have to make sure that this nomination does not lead to such fundamental changes in the affordable care act that those protections, those rights are eviscerated. the president had the opportunity to choose a nominee that would unify this country and assure the public of the fairness and independence of the judicial branch. instead he shamelessly in a partisan way picked someone who will only serve to propel our highest court into a far right orthodoxy for generations to come. it would become the supreme right wing court. if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, women's freedom to make

decisions about their bodies, reforms to our health care system, the quality of our air and water, and much more will be at risk. this is a critical moment for our country, much too important for any senator to rubber stamp this nominee in the name of deference to the president. so i am going to fight this nominee every step of the way, and i ask every american to join me in this fight. we will need all americans to organize, to march, to raise their voices to say that judge kavanaugh does not represent the values we need on the supreme court of the united states of america. thank you, madam president. and i yield back. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to talk about fires right now that colorado faces, some of the most

devastating fires in colorado history. as of the writing of our comments this morning, there were 40 fires so far in 2018, and this is one of them. i think this is the 416 fire i had the opportunity to visit a couple of weeks ago. this past week, i was in colorado where we were able to see the sugar loaf fire, drove by the western pacifier. this is some distance away from the christine lake fire and obviously the spring creek fire in colorado. as a result of these fires, over 355,000 acres in colorado have burned. that's simply devastating right now. but congress has not been inattentive to the needs of our forests. we have passed over the past several months legislation that would fix the fire borrowing crisis that had gripped the forest service. that was something that was forcing them to cannibalize dollars that could be used to reduce the next year's forest fires on this year's forest fires. we have fixed that.

we have put fixes in place for that. we also passed legislation that would give our land managers more tools to help address dead trees, insect disease-ridden forests so that we can have healthier forests. i hope that the work we do on healthy forest policies will continue in this congress that we have made great progress on. these fires certainly are devastating. these communities remain open. no matter where you are in the country, if you have a summer vacation in colorado, i hope you will still come. these communities need you now more than ever. they need your dollars. they need your resources. they want you to come visit. in the meantime, we have to make sure we provide our firefighters, the great men and women on the front lines of these fires, the tools they need to protect our communities but also the tools our land managers need to make sure they can prevent these fires from happening. we have also addressed this congress policies addressing categorical exclusions. that's a fancy way of saying it gives land managers tools to help reduce the fire risk in certain areas. we have helped to provide tools

in fire regimes one, two, and three. there are five fire regimes, fire regime one, two, three, four, and five. they all kind of are defined by how likely they are to burn, how frequent they are to burn in certain conditions. much of the west, though, is what's called fire regime four and five. you can see the colors of fire regime four and five, the orange or reddish color, and the purple color. the light green, the yellowish colors, they are one, two, three. we have been able to provide new tools for fire regimes one, two, three, but we haven't been able to provide as many tools in regimes four and five. that's what happens to be a significant portion of the west. that's where most of the beatle and other -- beetle and other insect kill has occurred in colorado. when a tree is killed, it creates a significant fire hazard. we have also been able to provide amendments we have filed to the farm bill. unfortunately it didn't succeed. i hope we can get them through to provide help in these

high-risk areas of disease and insect-ridden forests. past management practices have created conditions where we may have mono culture forests where you have a very -- a forest with the same age of trees. you have same conditions that allow them to be susceptible to the same insects, same diseases, and you end up with thousands of acres that are susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. now, where a lot of colorado's beetle kill insect can be found, they are also the headwaters of some off our nation's most significant water sources. colorado is the only state in the country where all water flows out of and no water flows into. i know the presiding officer is a beneficiary of colorado water as well. probably not enough of it, she would say, but it's important to nebraska that we protect colorado forests, because the headwaters of the platte river are in colorado.

the north platte, the south platte, the work that we have to be doing to make sure that we protect these -- these watersheds. bus what happens when a forest burns, you end up with height row phobic -- with hydrophobic soil conditions. the runoff goes directly into the water. it destroys the watershed. if you have a forest that has four or five times the undergrowth that it should, then that takes more water out of what would naturally go to the waterway and the watershed, meaning there is less water available for other uses downstream. and so if you could go to the next slide, i want to talk about some more of that forest management. we had another fire in colorado called the buffalo fire in summit, colorado. if you have ever driven up i-70 through the eisenhower tunnel toward breckenridge, you will go by a town, silverthorn. you can see in summit county, the buffalo fire actually threatened 1,400 homes. 1,400 homes were evacuated as a result of this fire.

now, the fire was 91 acres. it's about 95% containment. this risk that it posed was significant because it had a very densely populated area of the mountains, a community, homeowners that were right there, 1,400 homes evacuated. they had a lot of high-risk fuels, but what this community had done was something we should brag about all over the west, all over our forests. they actually had incredible collaborative efforts with state and local governments in this area. they were able to develop fuel treatment to help moderate the fire activity. this was again a very challenging fire. we have extreme fire behavior in colorado this year, but because of the work that they had done, the collaborative work they had done to help reduce the risk, to help thin forests, to help reduce the fuel, to create the fire breaks, they were able to keep this fire from reaching those homes. the fire treatment worked. this is an example of a process that we ought to be spreading and looking at to help reduce

hazardous fuels around the west to make sure that we don't lose our communities when we have these devastating fires. this was just west of silverthorn. these fuel reduction projects, they help create fire breaks, prescribed burns help contain a fire with extreme behavior that could be simply devastating. this fire wasn't too far away from dylan reservoir, which is a key source of water for colorado. i want to go to the next slide as well. we got language into the farm bill that addresses vegetable laition management. now, this picture shows what happened after a forest fire. this is a power line, obviously. you can see the power lines going through it. so we have risk to our forests, we have risks to our communities, our homes, we have risks to our watersheds. we also have risks to our power supply systems. you can see that this pole has been simply disintegrated as a result of the fire. this has cost at least one utility over $10 million in the

bassalt area as a result of the fire. so we are working on language dealing with vegetation management. senator bennet and i sponsored language that would allow utilities to do work on their own dime outside of the right-of-ways because they could help prevent this kind of fire from happening and impacting our electricity and energy systems. the lake christine fire which is near basalt put out of commission a lot of different types of electric infrastructure. this utility i am constituenting will be millions of dollars for repair. it just makes sense for us to give tools to these utilities on their own dime to prevent this kind of damage, because they would be creating firebreaks, they would be creating more resilient systems that would allow our communities a little bit more, i guess, security in knowing that their electric systems, electricity systems would be protected and safe. so these kinds of bills that we have been able to produce have had and will have great impact on how we can prevent and how we

respond to catastrophic wildfire. and certainly a $10 million cost from one fire, there is going to be other costs, will increase rates. it has the potential to increase rates dramatically if we can't get a handle on the right kinds of policies. and finally, i want to turn to another disturbing aspect of what we have seen in colorado with these forest fires. we have seen an uptick in drone flying overactive forest fires in firefighting areas. look, if you go out and fly a drone and you do that without interfering with the firefighter and you're following all the rules, i don't think anybody has a problem with it. but if you're flying a drone and you're violating the rules and you're flying it over an active fire, stop it. i have talked to far too many incident commanders right now who have had to call off air tankers because there is a drone in the area. in fact, there is a video on youtube right now where you can see the drone coming in -- the drone footage, footage from the drone taking a picture of the forest while you see the shadow

of a tanker on the ground because the tanker went right over it. the pilots of that tanker were asked did you see the drone, and they said no. what would have happened if that drone would have hit that plane? perhaps causing an accident, perhaps costing lives, perhaps starting a new fire because the plane had to crash. now, what happens -- could have crashed as a result. now, what happens if you call off an air tanker that's already in the air, that tanker can't land with the slurry that it has on board already, so the fire tanker that -- the air tanker gets called off, it then has to go dump the slurry somewhere else. that could be $10,000, $20,000 of slurry wasted. $10,000, $20,000 at a time wasted because they got called off because somebody decided that they would rather fly their drone and get videos that they can post on youtube.instead of allowing firefighters to do their job. this is what the forest service has put out. if you fly, we can't. you have 105,000, 110,000-acre

fire in the spring creek fire right now. over 200 homes lost. an hour a day without supertankers, without air tankers is a big problem for those communities and the men and women who are putting their lives at risk trying to defend and protect our forests and our communities. so i just hope that people will use a little bit of common sense and not fly their drones over an active firefighting. i have introduced legislation with senator bennet and congressman tipton to make it a felony to interfere with a firefighting operation over a forest fire if you're flying a drone illegally. so to the men and women across colorado, across this country, we met with individuals from oregon, from all over the west when i visited the fire at the incident command center in southern colorado, when we visited the spring creek fire. we talked to fire men and women who spent their 4th of july not watching fireworks or picnicking with their family, but out defending and protecting our communities in colorado. thank you for their work.

thank you for their tireless efforts and sacrifice. it's dangerous. in fact, just last week as we were at the fire on friday, we commemorated and recognized the anniversary of the storm king mountain and those who were killed, 14, near glenwood springs about 24 years before. and so this is a very serious fire season, and thankfully we have serious policies in place that are addressing it, but there is nor work that we can do. -- more work that we can do. i thank my colleagues. madam president, i come to the floor also today to talk about a bill in a committee hearing that we had yesterday before the energy and natural resources committee called the restore our parks act, legislation that would provide billions of dollars to address the most pressing maintenance needs at our nation's national park units. national parks and monuments are an important part of colorado's history.

it's heritage to our nation's shared love of our public land system. we know in 2016, the year the national park service was celebrating its centennial, that colorado's 12 units managed by the national park service saw over 7.5 million visitors. 7.5 million advicers to who -- visitors who spent around $485 million visiting our national parks in colorado. but after years of increasing visitation popularity, national park units across the country are showing signs of stress and overuse for which programmatic funding has not kept up. national park units in colorado account for over $230 million of the $11.6 billion in maintenance needs that our national parks now face. rocky mountain national park which is one of the nation's most visited parks in the country and boasts the highest altitude paved road in the continental united states has $84 million alone in maintenancd maintenance needs. mesa verde, colorado's oldest

national park and the first established to protect the works of man, needs $70 million to address its deferred maintenance backlogs. these are the cliff dwellings that people see. the list goes on for dinosaur national monument, the great sands, and even b ents old forth. i have joined with colleagues to craft and advance legislation that fulfills our promise, fulfills our promise to public land that will keep the upkeep of our public lands a priority. i'm also pleased that it's based off of a funding model that has worked so successfully for the land and water conservation fund. the land and water conservation fund, one of the crown jewels, the crown jewel of our nation's conservation programs. i would point out that we're about a little over 20 days from another group of bipartisan senators, just 20 days ago holding a press conference highlighting the need to reauthorize lwcf in the next 100 days before that authorization

lapses. i was a part of that group. we talked about the need to have this program reauthorized again before it expires. the deadline is now just about 78 days away. i must also mention that we have yet to fulfill our promise on funding for lwcf. we need to fully fund the program, something i hope we can do in the near future. while i believe our bill is sufficient that the same will not happen here, we need to assure -- ensure a fuel commitment to the new effort to make sure we have the funding process from congress. i urge my colleagues to find a path forward to permanently you authorize -- permanently authorize the land and conservation fund. because access to the lands we're trying to maintain is as important as the parks themselves. i thank my colleagues for coming together on the restore our parks act. this backlog has persisted for far too many years. thank you, up a, and i note --

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the call of the quorum be done with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i also ask that we yield back the balance of the time. the presiding officer: without objection. all 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: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote or to vote? if not, the yeas are 70, the nays are 23. the nomination is confirmed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 595. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is approved. agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal reserve system, randal quarles

of colorado to be a member of the board of governors. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of randal quarles of colorado to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 892. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, andrew s.fulsome of

texas to be district judge of the sixth circuit. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of andrew a. oldham of texas to be united states circuit judge for the fifth circuit, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 903. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, ryan wesley bounds of

oregon to be circuit judge for the ninth circuit. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of ryan wesley bounds offering to be ninth circuit judge of oregon signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. flake: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: mr. president, i rise todays to discuss -- today to discuss a matter of great import be given the events of the past few days in europe as it relates to friends, foes, and peace. global peace is not a zero-sum game, and global alliances ought not to be the subject to whim,

impulse, opaque machinations, or mercurial threats of cancellation over internal disagreements. the world relies on the united states for stable and reliable leadership, and we have in turn benefited greatly in the peace and stability for which we have been the chief guarantors. this is not a subject that is even debatable. lately, the president of the united states has been characterizing our most vital relationships around the world in purely transactional terms, asserting that america has been taken advantage of. he has gone so far as to suggest that when it comes to our relationship with our nato partners, we get nothing for our troubles. nothing for a stable and peaceful europe? this is the danger in viewing these relationships as mere transactions, absent our shared values, absent values the world

is nothing but a cruel and cold place of warring camps and territorial ambitions and no durable alliances whatsoever. to view the world this way requires a frightening unawareness of the post-war security order that we ourselves created. and this posture of antagonism and suspicion toward our partners in peace can only be held when you blot out 70 of the most consequential years in the history of the world. apart from our shared sacrifice and our shared security, what we have been through together over those 70 years cannot adequately be reflected on any ledger or list of petty grievances, and a seeming ignorance of the scale of that history is blundering and strange. the mindset that comprehensive trade deficit as a grievous offense or an unfair act of aggression is the same mind set

that can upend vital security relationships that have been similarly misperceived. sometimes if i didn't know better, i might say that we are purposefully trying to destabilize the western alliance and to turn the world upside down. i might come to this conclusion because by a process of elimination, no other answer would make any sense. mr. president, if this is some kind of stratagem, what good could possibly be achieved by heedlessly making friends into enemies, and who exactly would benefit? what would this president replace the western alliance with? there simply is no better order that could be achieved by this destabilization. today i rise to pose a few questions, and i believe there is much riding on the answers to these questions. a couple of days ago, the

president of the united states said that his upcoming meeting with the russian president vladimir putin would likely be easier than his meeting with america's most important allies at the nato summit. why would a president, any president, say such a thing? the russian president at the very least personally directed a propaganda campaign and an extraordinarily ambitious series of sales tax aimed at the integrity of our elections in 2016, and we have been told that these attacks are continuing. he has shown no signs whatsoever of changing his behavior. the russian president is a man schooled in treachery and espionage. he jails and murders his opponents, presides over a mafia state, and he is an enemy of democracy. why would a meeting with putin be easier than a meeting with the allies that we rely on most to be a bulwark against him?

vladimir putin is not fine, as the president recently asserted, and singing his praises for no good reason sends a terrifying message to our allies, especially those countries that share a border with russia. flattering such a man who has demonstrated his hostility toward us and contempt for our values and has recently annexed part of neighboring sovereign countries is simply bizarre. yet the admiration -- that the admiration comes from an american president, well, that is unconscionable. the president, of course, continues to entertain mr. putin's denial of election interference and otherwise hardly mentions russian attacks on us other than to talk about the russia hoax or to refer to mr. mueller's investigation into the attacks as a witch hunt. this in spite of conclusive and overwhelming proof of russian

involvement generated from investigations conducted by his own government. why? then before a recent g-7 meeting, the president called for russia to be readmitted to the g-7. in spite of the fact that moscow continues to occupy crimea and has shown no remorse whatsoever for its behavior toward the united states. why? then yesterday in brussels, the president offered a twisted interpretation of how nato works and how it is financed in order to frame a grievance against our nato allies, supposedly on behalf of the american taxpayer. why? why would an american president create such conflict? and why, mr. president, does the president's complaint about our closest friends on the global stage unnervingly echo the russian position? mr. putin's singular foreign policy goal is to weaken democracies and destroy the

western alliance. could we possibly be helping him any more in his quest than by baselessly attacking our own allies? this antipathy and hostility toward our friends and allies is simply inexplicable, but it is not good enough for us to just say that. it is our job and obligation here in this body to try to end it, to reassure our allies that they are still our allies. over the independence day holiday, i had the privilege to lead a bipartisan and bicameral delegation to the in orderric and battlic states to -- to the nordic and battlic states whose view of the russian threat is, is much more intimate than ours, to hear of the concerns of the leaders there, nato allies and partners. we wanted to assess the threat for ourselves. in latvia where 40% of the population is ethnic russian, the propaganda for moscow is

strong and unrelenting. the nato alliance is weak. it won't last. the united states is an unreliable ally. these themes have lately become very familiar on this side of the atlantic as well. the people of lativa, ethnic russians and otherwise, pay close attention when a president says crimea is part of russia because people in cry had mia -- crimea speak russian. there is a lot of russian spoken in lativa. does that mean this is the name vladimir putin presides dickerly he over the remains of collapsed empire. all he has is nationalism and territorial ambitions and nostalgic appeals to former

glory. he is not a strong leader for his people anymore than kim jong-un's people love their dictator. if we fail to see these things clearly, we fail the world and ourselves and we dishonor those from our allied countries who kept the soviets at bay for half a century as the world hung in the balance. we're now told the president will be meeting one-on-one with mr. putin with no staff present, no press, no one to make a are record -- make a record of the event. why? if the white house is as confused about the nature of the threat we face from mr. putin as it seems to be, a meeting between the russian president and his counterpart could not be more concerning. it is vital that even the most

private meetings between leaders not be lost to history especially when once again the world seems ton hanging in the -- seems to be hanging in the balance. nato is one of the greatest investments our nation has ever made. any counternarrative about nato is willfully destructive and does real and lasting damage to us and the world. i join my senior senator john mccain in the sentiments he expressed just weeks ago. to our allies, bipartisan majorities of both parties support our alliances based on 70 years of shared values. americans stand with you. now, i would be remiss if i did not here today remind my colleagues that the only time article 5 of the nato charter has been invoked has been by the

united states after the attacks of 9/11 in 2001. our allies accompanied us into battle to defend our country and our way of life and they paid an eternal price for their commitment to our shared security. of the more than 3,500 casualties sustained thus far in afghanistan, roughly a third are the sons, the daughters, the husbands, and wives of our nato allies. in the spirit of nato, mr. president, those casualties are our casualties. we cherish them. we cherish them and their sacrifice as if they were our own because they are our own. let us honor them not just in memory but, indeed, in the way we conduct ourselves here in this place. and our commitment for the values for which they died, in

the clarity of our purpose, and, ultimately, in our basic ability to tell right from wrong no matter the cost. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the ney nomination the motion to reconsider be considered and laid on the table and the president be immediately informed of -- notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

they deserve a whole lot better than what those comments i just referred to reflect. see mac i regret the system of those text. two, i disagree completely with your attribution of my views of trump's supporters.

there are millions and billions of americans who are there. >> you told mr. paige and i will quote here. i loathe congress and she agreed. a survey i saw a while back about congress found that it's as popular than those things. this is not about us. its it's value and whether or not the american people can have the confidence that you are involved in. >> i appreciate that concern very much. i have the utmost respect for congress and its role in oversight for passing laws any

of the functions. but i was sitting in that comment was the efforts by some to turn legitimate oversight activity into unwarranted activity. >> there are a lot of us up here that don't like congress particularly also. you weren't removed from the investigation. >> all of the others that were there are still there. let me tell you who they are. he gave a thousand dollars to the democrat holding that seat. and zero to the trump campaign. and rush adkinson who donated to the clinton campaign he is still there. and kaylee free me in the hillary clinton campaign and

zero to the trump campaign. still there and andrew goldstein who'd donated $3,300 to both obama campaigns. they contributed to both of the campaigns still there. and they have the campaigns of dukakis. i did contribute the former congressman but he contributed 20,000 to the democratic and senate campaign committees i could go on but i'm just about to run out of time. suffice it to say that nine of the 16 investigators still on the case gave to hillary clinton or to both and none gave it to trump. shouldn't such a wide disparity of one american

people concerned that even though you are off the team that the fairness and lack of bias that president trump deserves. it might just be lacking here. >> sir what i tell you is this. i have and had no idea what contributions were made by anybody staffing in the special counsel's office. what i would ask you to relay as the men and women that i saw the attorneys the agents the analyst where the most remarkable, bright, patriotic, hard-working people that i've have the honor of working with. i want you to know i was absolutely and remain absolutely convinced that the efforts and the personnel that make up the office are the best in america. they will arrive at the truth and they will do that well.

we yelled back. thank you mister chair. i don't know where to start. if i could give you a purple heart, i would. you deserve one. this has been an attack on you in a way to attack mister mueller in the investigation that is to get the russia collusion involved in our election. it is what this committee should be looking at. i direct strike at democracy and what this country is about. not our competitor our foe. i just returned from the osce in berlin. and there was little question among our allies and people and diplomats throughout europe that russia is in antagonistic country that is trying to wreak havoc in the baltics, and they tried to use assassination to try to

influence the election. they are the bad guys. and you had dedicated most of your life to working in counterintelligence and one of your big cases i think it was donald heathfield. how many russian folks did you expose and bring to justice. >> that was a long large investigation that a tremendous number of extraordinary people worked on. >> there were ten roughly russia legal -- russian legals that were here. if members sir. serve. ten or 11. at that time early on yes. there are some things you can tell us about the russians before they meet with a very good friend and he cannot say

anything bad about him. i can speak to my experience as a national security professor. the russians are top rate adversaries in terms of their foreign intelligence service. in terms of how competently they are able to use that to have their foreign policy. many of which you reference. the desire to undermine the western alliance and minimize the role and influence and leadership around the world. attempting to minimize and undermine the extraordinary greatness of our democracy to make it seem pedestrian nothing special were on par. that is my intelligence perspective i wouldn't presume to get into that policy. >> the political rivals and arrest of journalist to

talking and writing about things that the state does not believe in. >> yes. >> it's not america at all. that is unfortunately what the mueller investigation is looking into. you had dedicated your life into working against that type of involvement and against that type of effort to subvert our democracy and undermined. i think you for that. it's astonished me that you would be put on trial as you had been today. somebody said we don't want young people to look at the front page constantly and see things about the fbi that is putting the fbi and the justice department in question on the front page. i would submit to this committee that the people who are putting that on the front page is this committee and the people who won't accept what

the investigator general said that there was no bias involved in the actions of you or were others that were investigated. they found no evidence that the collusion was protected by bias or other proper considerations. they were based on the assessment of the facts. with that as a factor there is no reason for this hearing. no reason at all. but it puts it on the front page again and again and as you said earlier. the russians are loving it because this is what they want. you would think it would be benghazi. it was a never ending television show from congress that got nowhere. except trying to influence the people that watch fox news. and this is really unfortunate and they can put lipstick on a pig but this is nothing but a ruse to try to get to the investigation and make people think it's baseless that it's 13 democrats that are working on this and they are prejudice and the discriminatory. just as jack nicholson said in

the movie a few good men you can't handle the truth and the truth is this is the most corrupt administration ever. i yelled back and i think you. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. about anything related to the trump russian investigation. in 2016, 17 and 18,. >> did they you ever talk to you about this issue. did they ever come to you. did you talk to them that they ever come to you about anything related to that. i received a number of calls from various members of the media particularly when i returned from the office of

agile counsel. did you get any inquiries from the press that you took. i referred them to the office of public affairs. and euro about you wrote about it also. >> we got an e-mail that it should be presented there. i want you to take a look this. this is an e-mail he wrote to lisa page. subject line is the buzz feed. are you familiar with this e-mail. it says this. comparing now the set is only identical to what mccain had has differences from what was given to us by korn and simpson. did you write all of that? >> congressman tommy answer it this way. if i could address the chairman. over the break i was authorized by the general counsel at dog dog and come

together. is there question you want to direct. based on something i had been told by the fbi. i think i'm aware of what the fbi told you and you and i will have another chance to talk about that. right now the job and from ohio controls the time. you wrote this. you see the from line? >> then it says too. a whole bunch of other key people at the fbi. let me ask you a couple questions about it. it has differences from what was given to us by korn and simpson. who's corn. and i would love to answer that question in every part of my i cannot answer that question who's corn and dirt

simpson. i'm not able to answer questions you're referencing three copies of the dossier and the one you said you got from corn and simpson. they are identical in your words but they have the corn and some simpson one that is different. it is important and i want to answer your question here is a position i'm in. the gentleman from ohio controls the time.

i had been directed that i may state that i have read the dossier that i rest read as it came in parts and pieces what i'm telling you is that i had been directed i may not state the various places. did you ever communicate with david corn. did you ever communicate with nellie or. when did you communicate with bruce or. somewhere between three or four times in the late 200060 16 early 2017 timeframe. did you talk about the investigation we're focused on here. my direction from the fbi i cannot answer that question.

are there three copies of the dossier as evidenced by what you said i'm on a i want to talk about this e-mail are the three copies. the most i can say is we received a variety of copies let me ask you one other question. they testified in front of the committee on august 22. did anyone from fusion ever communicate with the fbi. his response, no. no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi's so here's are having trouble understanding. how is it that you have a copy of the dossier from simpson. i can tell you i never had contact with fusion and again

sir. they will have a few more seconds as he was interrupted. this is the frustration that they feel. when they won't answer that. answer fundamental questions the guy he references in an e-mail it won't tell me who they are. this is unbelievable. but that's what it's got to now. and it's as frustrating as it can get. it's as frustrating to me as it is to you. i can tell you sir. >> if it's so frustrating answer the question. he has never answer the question.

>> please stop badgering. we are about to move on. we are about to move on where mr. struck can on advice of counsel. i'm going to yield to him for the purpose of doing that right now. i would love to do that. there is an appropriate time for oversight and as you will know that is at the end of an investigation once its conclusion. i'm certain that they will have the opportunity to look at any investigation that is close. and i would love to answer each and every one of your questions you have already been advised that you can't answer the question. this is the united states congress.

not under the jurisdiction of a federal bureau of investigation. >> we cannot be asking about an ongoing investigation that is sabotaging an ongoing investigation. they are table setting questions. and he can answer those questions. he was advised that he cannot. he will again answer that question. the gentleman from ohio has asked for 15 seconds. who is being square here. no one from fusion spoke with the fbi. in your e-mail we got a copy of the dossier from simpson. we will have regular order and we will revisit that question. between july 31, 2016 in

august. this is regular order. the gentleman refused to answer the question earlier. he has now been advised that he may answer the question that was in order earlier. and he's now been answer the question. republicans have recalled -- control the time.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

i hope that we will be. a that

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise today to talk about a couple of topics, and i ask unanimous consent that they be divided in the congressional record. i first want to talk about brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh is the president's nominee to be a new justice on the united states

supreme court. yesterday i had the chance to sit down with judge kavanaugh in my office and talk about his judicial philosophy, his view of the role of the courts and how he would approach some of the tough issues that the court is likely to face. frankly, i cannot think of anybody who's more qualified to serve as the next associate justice of the supreme court. this guy's background is incredibly impressive as is his record, which i will get to in a minute. but as important to me is brett kavanaugh the person. let me speak briefly about brett because i have known him for over 15 years. i have gotten to know him and his wife. i worked with him in the george w. bush white house. i had the opportunity to work with his wife because he was -- she was the personal assistant to george w. bush. they are both wonderful people and brett kavanaugh is a person i have gotten to know not p --

not so much as a legal scholar and judge but as a friend and watched him as a father and a husband. he's a guy with great compassion, great humility and a big heart. in his remarks on monday at the white house he talked a little about his life outside of being a judge, he talked about coaching his daughter's basketball team. many of us who have been coaches for our high school and grade school kids probably were able to relate to that. i'm kind of glad my kids got old enough so they could get better coaching so they wouldn't have the bad habits that i probably taught them. the fact is that's who he is, he coaches his daughter and makes that a priority. he also talked about tutoring and tutoring underprivileged kids. that's something he does quietly on his own time and feels strongly about. finally, he talked a little about how he perhaps and serves

meals to homeless people who are connected through his church. he talked about the priests who he works with on that, and i talked to the priest afterwards, and the priest said, in fact, we do this regularly. in fact, we're going to be serving a meal together on wednesday. and you never heard brett kavanaugh talk about that. in fact, in my meeting with brett kavanaugh yesterday, he was going straight from my meeting with him to serve meals to the homeless. i found out after the fact when someone brought to my attention on twitter that there was somebody who was there and taken a photograph of him in the background with a ball cap on. it's not something he brags about. it's not something he told me about. it's not something he does because it's the right thing to do for political purposes. he does it because it's the right thing to do as a christian and as someone who cares about his community and that's the brett kavanaugh i know. and i hope that others will see

these sides of brett kavanaugh as he goes through the confirmation process. as people get to know him through that, they are going to be very impressed and think that judicial philosophy, people are going to differ some, but with regard to what kind of person you would want to see on supreme court of the united states to look at what will be a difficult issue that will come before that court, you want somebody who has a big heart and has that compassion and who is humble and has the ability to listen. bret kavanaugh is a good listener. he's also got a very distinguished legal record. so, you know, there's some great judges out there, but i don't think, again, anybody has qualifications better than brett kavanaugh. he is clearly qualified to sit on the united states supreme court. oftentimes people call the d.c. circuit the second highest court in the land and that's the court he sits on already. he's earned the respect there

serving on the court of justices across the spectrum, judges on the right, judges on the left. he's had a number of law clerks go through his process who end up clerking maybe for the supreme court or going to private practice or pro bono work or with the government and every one of them that i've had the opportunity to know or to talk to has glowing things to say about him. one was my counsel in my own office and he's earned the respect of people who have touched -- who's lives he has touched and who have been able to work with him. he's got a great legal education. he graduated from yale law school and clerked for justice p anthony kennedy. this is the justice he would replace if is he confirmed. justice kennedy was a consensus builder, brett kavanaugh is a consensus justice.

brett kavanaugh applies the law fairly, impartially. he is independent, impartial, and smart. he interprets the law and the constitution rather than trying to legislate from the bench, which is very important. i think sometimes we forget about the separation of powers, and this is where people are accountable to the voters and where we legislate and the members of the supreme court and the lower courts, as well, are meant to interpret those laws, and, of course, take our great constitution and faithfully interpret that as well. i think that's ale really important judicial philosophy and one that i think most people want. that's what they are looking for in a judge, to fairly and impartially apply the law and protect the rights guaranteed by our constitution and not advance personal policy goals from the bench. he has embraced this his entire career as a judge.

professor kavanaugh as he is known at harvard law school where he taught for ten years is so committed to the constitution that his students say that he carries a copy of it in his pocket. it's a well-worn copy because when he pulls it out it is almost falling apart. it is the constitution he is loyal to, not partisan politics. according to one student from harvard law school, and i quote, if you didn't know his background that partisan wouldn't come across. you wouldn't know he was a republican or conservative. he wasn't to -- he was there to talk about the law. i don't see him as someone motivated outcomes but as someone motivated in finding out what the law is and what the law says. end quote. i think that's a big part of the reason why he's such a widely respected judge, and why he's so widely cited by other courts,

including the supreme court. they have endorsed his opinions more than a dozen times in the supreme court of the united states, including some of his dissents that have then become the law of the land. they pick up his dissent in the d.c. circuit and use that in the supreme court as a reason for a decision for the united states supreme court. that is highly ununusual and -- unusual. i think that speaks to his credibility, his legal competence, and also his hard work. he's a hard worker who focuses on ensuring that he's fully prepared. he's also just a dedicated public servant. he has chosen to spend 25 of his last 28 years serving the american people in various jobs. for all of these reasons he is a great pick. he has the experience and qualifications, he understands the appropriate role of the judiciary and puts it into practice on the bench, he has a record to look at. just as importantly to me though, again, he is a good

person. i'm proud to support brett kavanaugh's nomination to the united states supreme court. i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will keep an open mind and get to know brett kavanaugh as i have gotten to know him and as i hope the american people will get to know him as they make a judgment. and my hope is that brett kavanaugh will become a supreme court justice who will make us all proud. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the next comments be a separate entry in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i also want to talk about another important topic, which are our national parks. our parks are an absolute treasure for our country. they are beautiful places, beautiful public lands. as important they are part of our american culture and it is important to reserve -- preserve that leg sit. as an example in ohio we have the wright brothers shop and

home in dayton,ohio. it stands as an inspiration to anybody who dreams big dreams because that's what these two brothers did. you can see where these two ohio brothers changed the world and otherwise, frankly, they lived a pretty ordinary life and preserving their home and that shop is really important to see that. anybody can dream big and make a big difference. we have a responsibility to preserve that site and so many others that are important to our history for generations to come. the national park system includes more than 84 million acres of parks and historical sites that now attract more than 330 million visitors annually. it's an amazing system. by the way, i was told yesterday that only one department or agency of the federal government has more assets than the national park, and that's the department of defense with all of the military bases and all of

the physical assets they have, otherwise it's the parks. the parks have an enormous number of buildings, roads, bridges, water systems, and visitor centers and so on. and in my home state of ohio we've got eight of those national parks including cuiahoga national park which is the 13th most visited park in the united states. wherts it's biking or hiking or fishing or kayaking, i'm one of those 2.7 million visitors in ohio's national parks every year. i'll be at the cuyahoga national park with my wife enjoying that beautiful park. so these parks are treasures and they have so many wonderful facilities, but the problem is that over time, we've allowed a maintenance backlog to build