uphold our solemn responsibility to p preserve, -- to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. i've long believed that the president's words and actions have undermined our national interests and our values. but yesterday felt different. as someone who has sat for 26 years on the house and senate foreign relations committee, it was a day of infamy in the history of our foreign policy. yesterday the american people witnessed a supplicant president of the united states capitulate to a brutal foreign leader on the world stage. far from standing up to putin, president trump was unable to even acknowledge russia's attacks in 2016 and the continued threat it poses today. instead, the president reverted to his own insecurities about his electoral victory and

disturbingly subverted the work of the men and women who lead our intelligence community. i shouldn't have to repeat this, but i will. and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are as unequivocal as well. 17, 17 u.s. intelligence agencies together assessed that russian president vladimir putin ordered a sophisticated influence campaign aimed at the 2016 u.s. presidential election. yet, the president said he had no reason to believe russia interfered, and i have no reason to believe what he tried to clean up today. those statements directly contradicted statements from then-c.i.a. director mike pompeo who is now the secretary of state. the u.s. vice president michael pence and the director of u.s. national intelligence. the president said, and i quote, quote, i have great confidence in my intelligence people, but i'll tell you that president

putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer. he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 military intelligence officers that the special counsel indicted. i think that'sen incredible offer. well, the only incredible thing about that offer is that the president of the united states would invite the perpetrator of the crime to help with the investigation. that's incredible. every time president trump failed to stand up to vladimir putin felt like a collective punch in the gut of the american people. it was disturbing and saddening to see the leader of the free world shrink in the face of a dictator. just as disturbing is that we have no idea when france -- why

what transpired between the president and putin during their lengthy meeting. what could the president discuss with president putin for two hours with no other advisors present? if president trump said such appalling things in public, lord knows what he would have said to putin in private. and we deserve to know what was said and what was agreed to. we can't afford to be blind sided or outmaneuvered. just today the russian ministry of defense publicly stated that it's preparing to start implementing an agreement that the president apparently struck in helsinki with president putin, an agreement that neither congress nor the american people have been informed about. so to adequately protect america's interests, we know what commitments you made to putin. what specific topics did you discuss? what were the suggestions

president putin made to you? did you discuss any changes to international security agreements, and if so, what were they? did you advocate for the extradition of the 12 russian intelligence officers indicted last friday? did you make any commitments to the u.s. role regarding syria? did you press russia to return to compliance with the i.n.f. treaty and halt its nuclear threats against europe? did you discuss u.s. sanctions on russia, including sanctions that this body passed 98-2? if so, did you commit to any action? did you call on president putin to withdraw from crimea and eastern ukraine so both areas can be returned to the govern government -- to the sovereign government of ukraine or did you ultimately give up on crimea? did you discuss nato military exercises scheduled for this fall? did you agree to roll back or change the nature of those exercises? did you discuss u.s. security assistance to ukraine and make

any concessions regarding their continuation? did you raise the issue of political prisoners with president putin, including that of of the ukrainian film maker who's been detained for four years on a hunger strike? what if anything did you commit to? we need to know. now, we want -- the president keeps saying having a good relationship with russia would be a good thing. of course having a good relationship with countries in general is a good thing, but those relationships must be grounded in trust, in cooperation in the values that we share, values like human rights, democracies, self-governance and individual freedom. we do not share values with a country that attacks our election and by doing so seeks to undermine our democracy. we do not share values with a country that invades its sovereign neighbors and engages in a brutal war in ukraine. we do not share values with a country that bolsters the

butcher of damascus and is complicit in war crimes in syria. we do not share values with a country that assassinates political opponents and jails journalists. we do not share values with a country that continuously violates the international order. we do not share values with russia under putin. mr. president, we take oaths when we are sworn into office. president trump did as well. and yesterday's behavior from my view was an abdication of that oath, to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. we've reached a terrible and historic low point in the united states. an american president seems to have teamed up with russian intelligence against our democracy, our f.b.i., our justice department, and our intelligence community. our president is more closely aligned with vladimir putin than he is with his own government.

it's unfortunate we've come to expect this behavior, but president trump has made his fixation on putin, his affinity for authoritarians crystal clear and america is weaker because of it. so the question is, are senate republicans okay with this? and except for the presiding officer and one or two other colleagues, from the silence of many or the feeble comments of others, i'd say so. are they willing to concede russian policy to president trump? is the price of letting this president surrender to a brutal dictator in moscow some corporate tax cuts and a supreme court seat? tweeting about being troubled, troubled is shamefully inappropriate. signing on to symbolic measures that carry no force of law is a joke. and remaining silent in the face of betrayal is nothing less than

complicity. it's time that the republican-led congress live up to its constitutional responsibilities. if this senate is to respond appropriately, here's what we must immediately do starting this week. first, the foreign relations and my distinguished colleague and ranking democrat on the armed services and intelligence intelligence committees must hold hearings on what helped in helsinki. we have a right and responsibility to know what transpired between trump and putin and how it affects american citizens. we have the power to compel the administration to provide that information. we just need to use it. second, the senate must protect the mueller investigation and prevent interference by president trump. the president's laying the groundwork to fire the special counsel. we can't let that happen. it's our responsibility to protect the integrity of our institutions. third, the senate must conduct real oversight of the russian sanctions that were signed into law last august, and as i have

said repeatedly on this floor, the trump administration is ignoring several mandatory provisions of the law, mandatory in all the sanctions i've helped write, this is one of the first times that the congress came together and didn't give the president waivers because they were concerned about what he would do visa advice -- vis hfn a-vis russia. maybe that foresight was very claire voice yant. i know the democrats have spoken out. we sent several letters. we continuously urge administration officials to implement the sanctions. where are the senate republicans including all those who voted for this bill except for one? silent. if you want to stand up to putin, if you want to stand up against trump's capitulation in helsinki, then we need to press the administration to finally implement what's already in the law. what's already in the law. we should do so today. fourth, we need to protect ourselves here at home since

it's clear that we have a president who will not. the senate needs to take up and pass the protecting to the right to independent elections act cha "introduced last month that would bolster our electoral defenses. president trump's intelligence community has repeatedly warned that the kremlin's dangerous interference in u.s. democracy is continuing. just days ago, the director of national intelligence dan coats said that the warning signs ever blinking red of further russian cyber attacks. he noted that we are under literal attack, yet instead of martialing a government response, president trump remains fixated on protecting his fragile ego. mr. president, today is the fourth anniversary of the shooting down of malaysian airlines flight 17 over eastern ukraine by russian supported

separatists separatists which killed all 298 people on board, a devastating reminder of the real dangers of the kremlin's brutal targeting of civilians and why our relations with russia have been strained. yesterday putin said the ball is in america's court. well, it's time we take our shot. it's time we show the american people and the world what it means to put country over party. it's time to show the american people that we can be patriots, not just partisans, that we will stand by our allies and stand up to our adversaries, that we will defend our democracy, our institutions, and the values that truly make america great. our president has proven too weak, too egotistical, too feckless or maybe too compromised to do it. it's up to us. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island reed reed thank you, mr. president. as i and -- mr. reed, thank you, mr. president, as i and many feel

the trump summit was a disaster. the propaganda, dissembling and denial as part of russia's hybrid operations against our country, our allies, and our partners, they are an ongoing and persistent threat to our national security. by failing to challenge putin's fabrications on russia's interference with democracy, its role in syria, its use of chemical agents against civilians or violations of its arms control obligations, president trump acquiesced in russia's lies and facts and undermined our security in the process. reed reed a low point was president trump siding with putin on the assessment of russian interference. mr. reed: it was the intelligence community that putin launched an attack on our elections elections with an intent of

undermining public faith in our democratic process. that was confirmed unanimously by the senate select committee on intelligence. last friday the justice department indicted 12 russian military intelligence officers on charges of large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 press -- 2016 presidential election. despite being briefed on these developments, president trump chose to decide with putin on election interference. it's uncongressable that an american president standing on foreign soil chose to play putin's press secretary rather than take the word of his own intelligence officials, career professionals who put their lives on the line for the safety and security of all americans. president trump's words hurt our national security. nations or potential sources may no longer trust the united states. they my hold back and fear that their highly classified secrets could be revealed to russia or foreign adversary as trump has

done in the past. yesterday president trump also made a moral equivalency between the united states and russia. this is an unfathomable and dangerous break from the actions of past presidents of both parties. president trump's action this week have undermined the once bedrock belief around the globe that the united states is a beacon of hope and reliability. further, moral equivalency is a long-time russian narrative used by putin by the continued oppression of his people and suppression of democratic impulses within russia. owe a more basic level -- on a more basic level, president trump is undermining that which makes us strong. the world order that the united states created after world war ii is something that we have benefited for decades. we draw strength from our allies and from participation in international institutions. the united states is not weakened by them. they are strengthened by them. the mere act of the two

presidents sitting down together with a victory for putin. instead of taking this opportunity to talk tough and call putin out for his misdeeds, president trump delivered rewards without gaining any changes in russian behavior. this adds up to weakness, acquiescence and more. nothing about russia's behavior has changed. putin is still in crimea, he is still interfering in the domestic politics of the west and undermining people's faith in the democratic process. and this not theoretical. the director of national intelligence, coats, warned that russian cyber attacks are targeting our government and financial institutions. he used explicit language to say that akin to before 9/11, the warning lights of russian aggression are, quote, blinking about red again, close quotes. yet instead of recognizing that threat, denouncing attacks from russia, and developing a

whole-of-government solution to counter the threat, trump is cozying up to putin. in light of president trump's did he recall listing of his -- dereliction of his responsibilities, i urge my republican colleagues to stand up for the security and integrity of our democracy. some of my colleagues have condemned president trump's performance yesterday but clear and more concrete steps must be taken. republicans must reject president president trump's weak and damaging views on foreign policy. what we saw this week and throughout this presidency is an aberration that is unsustainable and this course must be corrected soon. words or regret and miss opportunity are not sufficient for yesterday. the republicans should pass legislation to protect the mueller investigation and ensure the investigation is permitted to follow the evidence wherever it leads and bring it matter to a conclusion. republicans should join with democrats to hold hearings, to

get testimony about the president's trip and particularly what he promised putin during their private meeting. republicans should join with democrats in calling on the president to fully implement the sanctions act against russia for its numerous nefarious activities. republicans should join with democrats to demand that president trump be interviewed by special counsel mueller under oath. and finally, i urge the trump administration to issue a comprehensive strategy, coordinating our military, diplomatic, law enforcement, financial and all other instruments of u.s. national power to counter russian maligned influence as called for in last year's ndaa. we are waiting a year for a legislative mandate of this congress to provide such a report. time is running out. this is not a partisan issue, and it's long past time for the president to denounce the behavior and take a whole-of-government response to

deter this behavior in the future. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i would yield to my colleague from arizona, if he wishes to be heard first. the presiding officer: the senator fromss arizonas a. mr. flake: thank you. i appreciate the comments of my democratic colleagues. and i hope more of my republican colleagues will speak about the spectacle yesterday in helsinki. i said yesterday that i never thought that i would see a president of the united states stand with the president of russia and blame the united states for russian aggression. i said yesterday that that was shameful. i feel the same today. today the president said that the press conference had been misinterpreted by the fake news media. i would say to the president that we all watched the press conference, and it wasn't the

fake news media that sided with the russian president over our own intelligence agencies. it was you. this body must stand and reaffirm that we stand with the men and women of the department of justice who have brought these 12 indictments against individuals from the russian federation who interfered with our elections. we must say that we stand with our nato allies, we stand with those in the e.u., that they are not foes, that they are friends, and that we must stand up to those real adversaries that we have. and right now russia is an adversary. i hope that the president will realize that. i hope that he'll take the word of the men and women of the department of justice and the entire intelligence agencies rather than the empty words of a dictator. with that, i yield back.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i'm honored and grateful to follow the very powerful comments of my friend and colleague from arizona, and they remind me of our mutual friend, his colleague and partner from the state of arizona, senator john mccain. whom we miss at this moment more than ever. but senator mccain is with us in spirit. and those words remind us that the threat we face at this perilous time in our national history must be met with a truly bipartisan response. the threat that we face is every bit as serious as any in the history of this country because it involves an attack on the

pillars of our democracy. 9/11 or pearl harbor involved a physical assault with immediate loss of life. russia's attack on this country in 2016 is every bit as serious and urgency. and the words of the national director of intelligence, our former colleague dan coats, should put us truly on alert. those blinking lights, based on objective and unvarnished evidence, as he put it, of a pervasive continuing attack should bring us together as a legislative body and as a country. so this issue really is not

about donald trump, as much as it is about our nation. the summit in a sense realized our worst fears, indeed our deepest nightmare. at best it was going to be a gift to president putin because it legitimized him and elevated him on the world stage. even if no words followed that private meeting. the truth is, as it happened, the president of the united states was a puppet, a patsy, a pushover. in fact, an appeaser in the worst tradition of that term. on the public stage, he put russia over his country. he failed to fulfill his oath of

office to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. he failed to put america's interests first. in fact, he blamed america first he blamed everyone exempt for putin -- he blamed everyone except for putin and himself. and now he has attempted, shamefully, to rewrite history, inartfully, incredibly, he has said in fact that some editing, some minor change in grammar would allow him to escape the universal condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum of his shameful surrender to

vladimir putin. the question is, what does vladimir putin have on donald trump? we will not know until the special counsel finishes his investigation. and we must do everything in this body -- and this point is central to what we are saying today -- to protect the special counsel against the continuing onslaught and assault from donald trump's cronies and surrogates on the far right, the fringe of the republican party, who are seeking to discredit the special counsel investigation, indeed talking about impeaching rod rosenstein and demanding documents involved in that investigation. we must pass now the special counsel independence and integrity act. but if donald trump is serious and he believes that the

russians in fact interfered with our democracy, what he will do now is implement the sanctions that were made mandatory on him. he has violated his duty by continuing to avoid imposing them. he will authorize the cyber command to take aggressive measures, not simply defensive, and penetrate and disrupt the systems of cyber within russia that are used against us. and he will authorize the exposure and revellation of russian oligarchs and vladimir putin's wealth around the world, hidden and concealed, the result of their corruption in russia. these measures he can undertake himself. and if the senate is serious

about protecting the united states, it will order that the transcripts and notes and any documents, along with the security team who attended that summit, come to the congress in a closed briefing and eventually an open one under oath so the american people can know. they should be required to provide whatever they know about what happened in that private meeting so that we know what happened and the implications of what happened are truly known. just yesterday the department of justice issued a criminal complaint against maria butina. it filed indictments against 12

russian individuals. she is a russian agent who worked through the n.r.a. to influence and corrupt our political system. again, part of the russian attack on this country. we need to hold hearings now to know whether russia has been using organizations like the n.r.a. and other shell companies to illegal funnel money in our elections. i close where i began. these issues transcend partisanship. they ought to be put above the everyday issues that concern us. we cannot say that we weren't warned. the failure to act and act now, to hold russia accountable, to make them pay a price, to show them that we will not tolerate, nor will our allies, this kind of interference in our election

will mean -- they'll do it again. history will judge us harshly. our allies were never more important than now. they are victims of the same kind of attack, rather than trashing them as president trump has done, we should bring them to our side and express to them, as this senate did by a 97-2 vote, that we are committed to nato, that if one of us is attacked, all of us is attacked. and, in fact, almost all of us are under arizona tack right now. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i want to start by thanking my colleague from connecticut for his words today and his leadership to protect the integrity of our democracy and the rule of law.

mr. president, when it comes to issues of national security and foreign policy, we've had many vigorous debates in this country over the decades and many important debates here on the floor of this united states senate. and there have been deep disagreements over specific foreign policy choices that we make as a country. but there has consistently, consistently been broad, bipartisan support for the view that the united states and strong u.s. leadership benefits not only our interests but the interests of folks around the world. and that has been american leadership grounded in key values and principles, including the promotion of democracy, universal human rights, the rule of law, a free press, and the idea that america is an exceptional nation based not on

tribalism but a beacon of hope for all people as symbolized in the statue of liberty. this isn't to say that over the decades we've always been virtuous or always consistent in the application of these principles. we all know we've made many mistakes and detours along the way. but, mr. president, until now, until this moment in our history, the principles and values that i outlined have been the guideposts and cornerstones for american presidents, republicans and democrats alike, since the end of world war ii. and with those guideposts, we have built some very important international architecture, our alliances, international institutions or international agreements. but today, sadly, we have a president who has gone absolutely rogue on the

time-tested bipartisan tenets of american foreign policy, whether it's the way he attacks or berates our allies or consistently goes out of his way to praise dictators like vladimir putin or kim jong un or other autocrats around the world. mr. president, i'm not going to take the time today to chronicle the mountain of evidence leading up to the events of last week that show already president trump's radical retreat from the kind of global leadership america has exercised since the end of world war ii. we all know those views are shared by many of our republican senate colleagues. senator mccain has been very strong on that, as have some other republican senators. others have said quietly what senator mccain has said publicly. and this is a moment where everybody has to come together as patriots, not partisans.

in addition to people like senator mccain, you have a lot of republican foreign policy experts. you have independent groups like freedom house who have raised the alarm bells about this administration's far-reaching attacks on fundamental institutions of democratic society like freedom of the press. one thing we all know, we know that the words and actions of an american president have real-world consequences, and those of president trump leave our friends unsure if they can depend on us and create openings and opportunities for adversaries. they weaken our credibility and squander our moral authority on the world stage. of course the events of last week and yesterday really are the ultimate expression of this president's retreat from that

bipartisan tradition, american foreign policy. first, going to a nato meeting and berating some of our closest allies. all of us understand that each of our nato allies needs to fully contribute to nato. in fact, these countries that already made that commitment. but what president trump did was threw them under the bus and diminished the importance of the nato alliance. then he went directly from there to his meeting with vladimir putin. but before that meeting, the president let us know what his state of mind was. the president tweeted out our relationship with russia has never been worse, thanks to many years of u.s. foolishness. not russia's invasion,

occupation of crimea. not russian aggression in the ukraine. not russian activities around the world that undermine peace and stability. and not russia's attack on our democracy in the 2016 elections. in fact, shortly before he went to meet with putin, he again invoked a stalinist expression where he said much through the media is the enemy of the people, something i'm sure warmed the heart of vladimir putin, who doesn't like any criticism, like our president doesn't like any criticism. and then he went into this meeting and came out in that joint press conference. and what did he do? standing side by side with vladimir putin, he told the

world that he sided with putin over the leaders of the american intelligence community on the question of whether or not russia interfered in the american elections in 2016. he said, president putin assures me that they did not interfere. he says it very strongly. and then he sided with president putin over his own director of the c.i.a. who has testified before congress about russian interference in 2016, over the director of national intelligence, dan coats; over secretary of state pompeo; over the very people that president trump said that all of us should trust in these important positions of responsibility.

and yet, on a world stage, he bowed to president putin and said that he trusted president putin's word over that of u.s. intelligence. now i understand today he's trying to walk this back; right? he actually tweeted out, i had a great meeting with nato. i had an even better meeting with vladimir putin of russia. sadly, it's not being reported that way, and the fake news is going crazy. the challenge president trump has this time is we all watched that press conference. the world saw it. and so really the question now for us here in the united states senate, republicans and democrats alike, are what are we going to do? what are we going to do now that the president of the united states has taken this position

undermining the credibility of his own country? you know, we were worried before the president went to the nato meeting, and we passed a resolution here. that was a good thing, a resolution affirming our support for nato. last year, over the objections of the trump administration, we passed legislation imposing sanctions on russia. now we have to come together as senates have before, republicans and democrats, to send a very strong signal that the united states stands together in support of the bipartisan principles we've stood for before. we now know that the president will not defend the integrity of our democratic process. we need to do it. and my colleagues have outlined many steps that we should take. one step we should take is directly related to future elections, because what we know from the testimony of the head of the c.i.a., the head of the d.n.i., and the secretary of

state, is they all expect russia, unless something changes, to interfere in our 2018 elections and our future elections. 2018 elections are 16 weeks away. we now know the president of the united states is not going to defend the integrity of the democratic process, so we have to do it. one of the many things we should do, mr. president, is support legislation that i've introduced together with senator rubio, bipartisan legislation. very clear, it says to vladimir putin, if you interfere in another u.s. election and we catch you, russia will automatically face very stiff sanctions to your energy sector and to your banking sector, that there will be a huge price to pay. it's called the deter act. the whole idea is to make sure that vladimir putin knows that

the costs of interfering in our elections far outweigh any benefit he may think he gets. so i hope, mr. president, we will stand together as republicans and democrats to do what the president of the united states won't do, and that's to protect the integrity of our elections. let's learn from the past. let's work together for the future. thank you, mr. president. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. just yesterday the world watched as president trump standing in front of the american flag side by side with vladimir putin not only betrayed the dedicated men and women of the u.s. intelligence and law enforcement communities, but then showered praise upon the russian president, the man who directed the interference of our elections. this prompted outcry from members on both sides of the aisle, as it should. i read statements from my colleagues that were very strong in condemning president trump for putting russia ahead of the u.s. using terms like shameful

and disgraceful. and not just from republicans who bravely stood up to this president before. i heard from members of congress and even some fox news contributors unable to twist themselves into defending the president in this moment as he so clearly undercut our own country. and i am glad they spoke up, because words matter. but you know what also matters? action. and so now i ask what will congressional republicans do about it? many republican members of congress are acting if they just have a twitter feed, as if they aren't the party in troll of the senate and -- control of the senate and house, as if they don't have the ability to make a difference and demand change. that is absurd. the time for hand wringing and hoping the problem goes away is over. with the power to call up legislation and hold hearings, republican leaders do have options, and they certainly have a lot of democrats who stand ready and willing to help. because, mr. president, it is

truly horrifying and deeply alarming that president trump failed to use that moment to push president putin to end his attacks on our country and our elections, and failed to condemn the kremlin's interference in the election of our allies. or putin supported the brutal assad regime in connection to chemical weapons attacks by the syrian government. or the illegal annexation of ukraine's crimea peninsula. or the 2014 downing of mh-17 over the ukraine where 295 people were killed, other the murder of journalists in opposition politics or use of chemical weapons or undemocratic authoritarian and repressive rule of the putin regime and how it activity works against our american principles. instead of standing up for our values and our national security, our president defended putin on all fronts. instead of putting america

first, he performed putin's bidding by attacking our closest allies and trying to dismantle nato. today i know that president trump tried desperately to backtrack, but we know where he stands and we all heard what he said on the world stage just yesterday. it is appalling and inexcusable and unworthy of the president. so my message to every member of the senate and to every member of the other body is clear. it is time to strengthen the sanctions against russia for its aggression around the world, to demand answers from secretary pompeo and the other members of the trump national security team, especially about what the president may have promised putin during their closed door meeting. and for them to provide congress, all of us, with any notes from the meeting that may exist. we need them to stand up for and protect the department of justice, the f.b.i., and the special counsel, to insist the

president demand the extradition of the 12 russians indicted for their attacks on our election, and to pass election security legislation. this is not a partisan issue. this is about defending the integrity and foundational values of our nation. this is about congress doing its constitutional job and holding the president accountable for his shocking and repeated failures. this is about telling our allies around the world they can still depend on the united states. and this is about putting the country before party. stand not just with democrats. stand with people across the country by taking action to hold russia accountable and protect this country from future attacks. and ask president trump why eschewing to defend -- he is choosing to defend russia and blame america. and ask what or who is motivating him, because it's certainly not the american

people, our security, our values, or our future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i was pleased to see president trump's clarification today, the russians did medal in our election, that's the consensus not just of the intelligence community but it's the consensus here among our own intelligence committee house and senate led by republicans. i will say that congress has pushed pretty hard against some of the russian visitor not just the meddling but the illegal annexation of crimea, russia's support of the assad regime which has caused pain and agony. we have passed historic sanctions harpbd here on russia. should we look at additional sanctions? i'm hopeful to that. we've also provided for the first time ever lethal weapons to the ukrainians to be able to push back on the eastern border of ukraine. i pleaded with the obama administration to provide such

weapons, and they never did. and this administration has done so despite protestations from russia. we just funded $350 million or so to protect our electoral securely in this country and help our state boards of election be able to push back against what i'm concerned about which would be interfering in yet another election cycle in this country, and i'm glad that was a bipartisan effort to do so. # we've also built up our military, including putting more resources into eastern and central europe, including uparmorring our vehicles there because of the threat we now believe is coming from russia, not just on the eastern border of ukraine but throughout eastern and central europe. this administration has actually expelled more russian diplomats than any administration, at once at least, in reaction to the poisoning in the u.k. we expelled more diplomats than any other country. we also shut down a russian consulate i believe in the state

of the colleague who just spoke and, you know, these are all things that have happened. the irony is, the actions actually speak pretty loudly, don't they? sand it's -- and it's unfortunate that our words have not spoken as clearly recently. i think we need to be honest and straightforward. that will result in a better relationship with russia. today, mr. president, i'm coming to the floor actually to speak about something very positive, and that is the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be the next associate justice of the supreme court. a lot of people have talked about judge kavanaugh's impeccable qualifications. i spoke to a democrat colleague who may or may not support him but said, i'll agree, this guy is well-qualified. and indeed he is. i now sits on the d.c. circuit, the second most powerful court in the land. he has gotten positive reviews. important to me is not just someone's qualifications and their legal background but also

their character. character is incredibly important for a supreme court that's going to have to deal with so many issues, important issues to us and our families going forward. this guy is someone of deep and strong character. he's compassionate, he has the humility to be able to listen, he's got a big heart. i have known this fight for over 15 years. he served in the second bush administration. i also served there, got to know him and his wife there, and before that as well, during the campaigns. this is somebody who is, to me, not just a legal scholar and a judge but a friend. and i've seen him as a fathers and as a husband. and i cannot think of anyone who i would rather see there on the court in terms of these character strengths he has as someone who is humble and compassionate and a good listener. as he goes through the confirmation here in the senate, i think my colleagues who are still undecided are going to be impressed. i think the american people will

be impressed because they'll recognize him as the kind of person they would like to see on the supreme court. professor kavanaugh, as he is known at the harvard law school where he teaches, is respected for all the right reasons and kind of across bootrd. he volunteers as a tutor for underprivileged kids. he fed meals to the homeless just last week, which was previously planned. some folks on both sides of the aisle have come forward to speak out about him and his character. that's good. his former students at harvard law school have said that he is a guy that focused on the constitution and the importance of hearing all sides of an argument to find out what the law is and what the law says. that's what you want in a supreme court justice. today i want to mention some people who know brett kavanaugh by another name, and that's coach k. coach k is not the famous coach k of duke fame but he is coach kavanaugh. he teaches and coaches both his

younger daughter's team and his older daughter's team. julie o'brien, whose daughter goes to school with brett kavanaugh's older daughter, recently wrote an article in "the washington post" that i thought encapsulate what had i am trying to say about brett calf u.n. she discussed how coach k coaches her daughter's basketball team. last season the blessed sacrament team won a citywide champion, so he must be a pretty good coach, too. not surprisingly to the players and parent whose know him, the team photograph and trophy is displayed prominently in coach k's judicial chambers. along with coaching, brett is known as the car pool dad, shoveling his daughters and their friends to and from games and events. mrs. o'brien went on to mention another story that i think displays brett's character -- well. she said a few years ago her husband passed away and with no one to accompany her daughter to

the annual father-daughter dance, brett kavanaugh stepped up. that year and every year since then, brett has taken her daughter alongside his own daughter to the father-daughter dance. that's the kind of man brett kavanaugh is. he is thoughtful, he's caring. he does things because they're the right thing to do, as someone who cares about others and his community. he has chosen to spend 25 of his past 28 years serving other people in his jobs, most list on the d.c. circuit. he is the kind of person you would want on the supreme court. he has a judicial philosophy that's pretty simple. he has proven timed and time again that he will apply the law fairly. he interprets the law based on the words and historical context and meaning rather than trying to legislate from the bench. that's what most people are looking for. speaking to the notre dame law school in 2017, judge kavanaugh spoke of the legacy of justice antonin scalia and what people

should take away from his time as a supreme court justice. he stated, and i quote, the judge's job is to interpret the law, not make the policy or make law. so read the words of the statute statute as -- the statute as written, mindful of history and tradition. don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the tension of the constitution and don't should i away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. end quote. i think judge kavanaugh is the kind judge the american people want, someone who will fairly and impartially apply the law, not legislate from the benches. he has got an outstanding judicial record from 12 years on the bench. he's thought leader among his peers on the appellate court and has respected the judges on the supreme court as well because they've picked up his decisions and used them in later cases. just as importantly to me, again,s a a good -- he is a good person. i am proud to support brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court of the united states and as this confirmation process continues, i hope my

colleagues on both sits will keep an open mind and get to know the brett kavanaugh that i know, that his family and friends know, and that the american people are coming to know. i hope we can confirm him with a strong, bipartisan vote so he can serve our american community from a new role, that of associate justice of the supreme court. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: as the presiding officer may know, i spent many years of my life in the navy. some 23 years of my life. i was a naval flight officer, spent most of those 23 years has a p-3 aircraft commander. he was even for a limited period of time the air commander when we were deployed in southeast asia. i flew hundreds of missions during both the vietnam war and the cold war, conducting surveillance operations, gathering intelligence on the soviets, on the soviets and on

others who sought to undermine and destroy the american way of life. as a cold war warrior watching an american president yesterday blatantly ignoring attacks on our democracy and our intelligence agencies was beyond galling; it was reprehensible. reprehensible. four days ago special counsel mueller indicted 2 russian intelligence officers for interfering in our democratic elections in 2016. that same day, last friday, fray day the 13th, the director of national intelligence, our old colleague dan coats from indiana, said that our country's digital infrastructure is literally under attack. in fact, here what he said. this is last friday. dan coats said the warning signs are there. the system is blinking. and it is why i believe we are at a critical point. friday the 13th. yesterday our president with the

entire world watching chose to attack not the soviets, not the russians but bob mueller, one of the finest people i've ever known and worked with. he attacked bob mueller and rebuked the u.s. intelligence community with whom i'm worked as a emin of the homeland security for many number of years as has our presiding officer. and instead of siding with the 17 u.s. intelligence agencies, all of whom agree unanimously, without dissent, that the soviets, the russians intervened in our elections in 2016 in an effort to throw the election to donald trump, to take it away from hillary clinton, the democratic nominee. there is no question. that's what they've done. but our president chose to ignore that and instead of admiring and speaking to the work of the intelligence agencies and concurring with

them yesterday he decided to side with an authoritarian thug vladimir putin p. that's a defining moment in our nation's history. i think it is a sad moment in our nation's history. we ought to move immediately to pass a bipartisan legislation introduced in the senate earlier in year to allow bob mueller, bob mueller's critical work and that of the people working with him, to be completed without the constant threat of political interference. now, i -- having said that, i, as a predicate, i just want to turn to the nomination of brett kavanaugh to sovereign the supreme court. -- to serve on the supreme court. brett kavanaugh used to clerk for a federal judge named walter stapleton. most people haven't heard of him. if you're outside of the delaware valley, maybe maryland, pennsylvania, new jersey, but if you've been involved in legal

issues, judicial issues there, you may recall that he was nominated to serve as a district court judge, federal district court judge in delaware and serve there had for a number of years with distinction. he went on to serve on the third circuit court of appeals in our region, again serving with distinction. i think he assumed senior status on this court in 1999, after many years of service on the federal bench. the last -- the second half of the last century, he was seen as a giant, as a giant in the judicial system, federal judicial system, certainly in our part of the world, but i think beyond our borders. when george w. bush, my former colleague as governor, as president nominated brett kavanaugh to serve on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, among the people i consulted with was former judge walter stapleton and others who had clerked for

him and worked with him and who know brett kavanaugh and who were very complementary, as has our colleague rob portman been today. talk about the human side of him and the qualities that i think we would admire in almost anybody. there used to be a guy on the radio, abc radio many years ago when i was a kid growing up called paul harvey. i don't know if our presiding officer is old enough to remember paul harvey. i would do the news. he would do the top of the news, he would say page it and report the rest of the news. i am going to go to page 2 here today with respect to brett calf u.n. i voted for him. there were about a dozen democrats in 2006 thattest involved for cloture. four of us voted for -- robert byrd, marie landrieu, i think ben nelson and i voted for confirmation. we voted, if you will, our hopes

rather than our fears. but we voted in part because of what we learned from others who knew him, who worked with him and who admired him. i'll just flat out, if i had known then what i know now about the kind of decisions he would write and support over the next -- the following 12 years, i would not have voted for him in 2006. and i think it's highly unlikely i will vote for him today. i think it's time to hit the pause button on such consequential nominees like mr. kavanaugh whose writings have repeatedly made clear that he believes the president is above the law. this is a man, mr. kavanaugh, who worked with ken starr to go after bill clinton as president hammer and tong for alleged misdeeds, misconduct that he apparently had done.

now, some 20 years later, that same brett kavanaugh seems to have rather than feeling that presidents definitely are not above the law, presidents have be to held accountable like anybody else, he seems to have done a 180 here and instead is basically seems to feel that presidents almost are above the law, cannot be held accountable. i don't get it. i don't know how someone can change on something that -- and it wasn't as if just during the starr years to have gone from that position, to be such a fervent attack dog going after bill clinton to basically saying the president is pretty much do without oversight what they see fit.

i just -- and that's one of the issues i want to discuss with brett -- judge kavanaugh when i meet with him later this -- hopefully later this month. but for that reason alone, judge kavanaugh's views of the president and whether the president is above the law, i think for that reason alone especially at this point in time in our nation's history, i think that one issue, that one reason should be enough to say let's hit the pause button. let's hit the pause button on this nomination. there are a number of other reasons that judge kavanaugh is my view the wrong pick for our nation's highest court and i want to discuss a few of those today. in may 2006 as a nominee of the d.c. circuit court of appeals, judge kavanaugh made a pledge under oath.

judge kavanaugh pledged to members of this body that if confirmed he would, quote, interpret the law as it's written and not impose personal policy preferences. not my words. his words. kavanaugh went on to pledge that he would, quote, exercise judicial power prudently and with restraint. not my words. his words. brett kavanaugh pledged that he would, quote, follow precedent in all cases fully and fairly. not my words. his words. brett kavanaugh pledged that he would above all, quote, maintain the absolute independence of the judiciary, which is in his words, and i quote again, the crown jewel, the crown jewel of our constitutional democracy. i took brett kavanaugh at his word in 2006. i trusted him when he made those

pledges. i thought of mr. kavanaugh as a young lawyer, the opportunity to fulfill his promise to faithfully uphold and interpret our laws as written. i expected him not to reject his personal policy preferences or the ideology of special interests and groups like the heritage foundation into his decision making on the bench. i know now a little more than 12 years after he made those pledges that my trust in brett kavanaugh was misplaced. as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, brett kavanaugh has broken his pledges repeatedly. there is a saying in my state, fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. for me, judge kavanaugh, shame on you. but you won't fool me twice. brett kavanaugh has broken

pledges and impacted the lives of just about every american. it may affect americans with preexisting conditions who risk losing access to health care as well as a woman's right to make her own decisions. he fought hard won workers rights, consumer protections and civil rights enacted into law over decades for the protections of future generations. he affected the independence of our judiciary in three separate coequal branches of our government founded by our founding fathers to make sure no citizens, no citizens, not even the president of the united states is above the law. judge kavanaugh has broken pledges that affect the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the world we will leave to our children and our children's children. today we seek to shine light on brett kavanaugh's environmental

record, one which, sadly, all too often puts the interest of polluters ahead of the public. one such example is mr. kavanaugh's rejection of the e.p.a. good neighbor rule, which regulates air pollution that travels across state lines to downwind states like delaware, maryland, new jersey, new york, connecticut, and others. in a case called homer city vs. e.p.a., he sided with the polluters and ignored petitions from delaware and eight other states as well as the district of columbia when he said that e.p.a. lacked the authority to require upwind states to be better neighbors. judge kavanaugh views are too extreme for some of the supreme court conservative justices who reversed its decision, saying that he followed his own policy views rather than law written by

congress. just yesterday i was with state officials and concerned citizens in the state of democratic speaking out against the current e.p.a. misguided decision to reject delaware's ability and not of our neighboring states to address dangerous pollutants blowing into our state from dirty parklands to the west of us. delaware families, especially children and those with asthma still suffer from harmful pollution that lands in our communities through no fault of our own. that's just not right. when i was governor of delaware from 1993 to 2001, i could have shut down my state's economy. every vehicle off the road, shut down every business. we would have still been out of compliance for clean air with respect to ozone, still been out of compliance because of air coming into our state from states to the west, our upwind states. think of that. think of that. there's a reason why we have a golden rule. there's a reason why we talked about the good samaritan.

there's a reason why we have this thing about we ought to treat other people the way we want to be treated. we want to be treated like a good neighbor. if the shoe were on the other foot, i know we wouldn't send our pollution to those states, and e.p.a. should stand up for our states and say enough is enough. but apparently judge kavanaugh disagrees. brett kavanaugh descended from a position on toxic air pollution written by judge, chief judge merrick garland. in white stallion energy vs. e.p.a., mr. kavanaugh said e.p.a. had to consider the cost to industry when determining whether power plants should have to reduce toxic air pollution that causes cancer and lowers the i.q. of children. judge scalia quoted judge kavanaugh when the supreme court later adopted mr. kavanaugh's position in another 5-4 decision, even though the clean air act, even though the clean

air act doesn't say a thing about having to consider costs. the coalition for responsible regulation vs. e.p.a. mr. kavanaugh rejected the interpretation that congress gave e.p.a. the authority to control any air pollutant, including greenhouse gases, that contribute to climate change. mr. kavanaugh argued that taking the clean air act at its word and interpreting any air pollutant to include greenhouse gases would lead to what he considered again, as his own personal position, not as a matter of law, absurd results. mr. kavanaugh not only has proven to be untrustworthy in these regards. he's also directly called into question e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gases and combat climate change. these cases and the ideas advanced by judge kavanaugh in his opinion have striking similarities to those advanced by recently departed trump

administration official scott pruitt. and that should worry every member of this body. scott pruitt may be out as administrator at the e.p.a., but if brett kavanaugh is confirmed to serve on the supreme court, mr. pruitt's dangerous anti-environment agenda will continue to wreak havoc, this time with the weight of our nation's courts behind it and for a long, long time. put simply, brett kavanaugh will attempt to finish in many respects what scott pruitt started. i take seriously the senate's constitutional role of providing advice and consent on a presidential nominee to the supreme court. as governor of delaware, i nominated dozens, scores of men and women to serve on our courts, supreme court, court of chancellor, superior court, major courts not just for

delaware but actually for the country. i always felt that the delaware legislature should carefully consider my nominees. give them a hearing, meet with them, and in the end vote them up or down. i felt like we should have done that with merrick tkpwar -- garland almost two yearsing a. we treated him shamefully. we didn't, we didn't, but some in this body did. i will afford brett kavanaugh the opportunity my republican colleagues, at least most of them refused for merrick garland, chief judge of the d.c. circuit court of appeals, highly regarded by democrats and republicans alike. they abdicated their constitutional responsibilities. our colleagues, in 2016. now they want to rush through and literally within a couple of months, the nomination of brett kavanaugh. well, i look forward, to

interviewing brett kavanaugh in the coming weeks and give him the opportunity to explain why he broke his pledges time and again, time and again. how could a person who seems that nice and that decent make so many wrongheaded and i think wrong-hearted decisions and support those decisions from the bench time and again? we're in a battle. we're in a battle on many fronts in this country. one of the battle fronts is with respect to our environment, the air that we breathe, the water we drink, the health of our people, young and old. we're fighting dangerous environmental roll backs put forth by this administration maybe not every day, but just about every week. we don't need in a system which, in this country where we have lived by and been sustained by an incredible system of checks and balances for years, for decades, for centuries, what we

don't need is a supreme court that will side with polluters over our public health. with that, i yield back my time and would yield to -- i note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i would like to ask that any pending quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and, second, to follow up on the remarks of our distinguished democratic ranking member on the environment public works committee, senator carper, who spoke about the environmental prospects of trump's nominee, brett kavanaugh, should he reach the supreme court. i come at this from a very particular angle, and let me start by kind of laying the predicate, if you will, for my comments. a long, long time ago when the founding fathers were setting up our country they brought over

the tradition of an independent judiciary and of the common jury from england. it was extremely important to the founding generation, the declaration of independence made reference to efforts to interfere with the right to trial by jury, the efforts by british agents of influence to interfere with american juries was a constant thorn, and the feeling was that the independence of courts, and particularly the independence of jurors, was a very significant check and balance in the constitutional system that the founders were setting up. these were experienced

politicians. these were thoughtful people who had read and debated a lot about governance and they understood that there were times when very powerful interests were able to dominate a legislative body. there were times when very powerful interests were able to dominate a governor or other chief executive and that, indeed, there were times when that same very powerful interest could not only common nature not -- demonstrate not only the executive but legislative branch at the same time. therefore you needed an independent branch of government where you could go to be sure that you are being treated with justice, and they designed it all fairly carefully. the jury has a lot of advantages to it.

you don't get repeat jurors. every jury pool is a new group and the reason for that is to make it hard for big interests to be able to go to people who might be jurors and try to fix the jurors in their favor, the same way they go to legislatures and try to fix legislators in their favor. you don't know who your jury is going to be until it is called up so you can't apply influence to a jury. and if you try, it's actually a crime. it's called tampering with a jury. so we very carefully set up independent judges and pools of regular citizens who came in virtually at random to do one jury service and go back to their lives, and we did it for a

reason. blackstone described that reason as to provide a safeguard for regular citizens against other more wealthy and powerful citizens, more wealthy and powerful interests. it's an interesting piece of our constitutional analysis because in most places what has been setup is a structure that is designed to protect the common citizen against excesses of government. the checks and balances are generally set up to protect the ordinary man and woman against excessive use of government power against them. with the jury blackstone said, it's a little bit different. it's not just abuse of power by government, it's abuse of power by the more wealthy and powerful

interests because they knew that it's the more powerful and wealthy interests who come in and who try to fix the legislature, who try to fix the governor, or in this case at the federal level, the president, and therefore the jury stood as the guardian and bulwark of regular americans against influence from the more powerful and wealthy interests. well, look around at who the more powerful and wealthy interests are in our country right now. the biggest collectively is probably the fossil fuel industry. if you add up the whole koch brothers, koch industry apparatus, if you add up exxonmobil and chevron and shell and the whole american petroleum institute population, if you

look at the extent to which they have seized control of the national association of manufacturers and the united states chamber of commerce and you put that whole array together, it is very likely not only the most powerful political influence effort now it may very well be the most powerful political influence effort in american history. those wealthy and powerful interests are hard at work to make sure that their interests come first and the interests of ordinary americans come a very distant second. and the way in which mr. kavanaugh comes to this nomination smells of all of that influence already. for starters, he was selected through a very private process that from all the information we have into it is moderated by a

group called the federalist society but which checks in with all the big republican funding special interests to make sure that they are all okay with the nominee. there is a preclearance by special interests that takes place for these judicial nominees. and obviously the most powerful and wealthy special interests, the biggest political force perhaps ever, is going to be a part of that checklist. there can be no doubt that if the fossil fuel industry wasn't checked off on brett kavanaugh he would not be the nominee. there is no doubt in my mind that they and other special interests, the gun lobby, the antichoice crowd, wall street folks all had the chance to say, no, not that guy, find me somebody who will be good to us.

so kavanaugh's already cleared that process, and now you see the confirmation process under way and you see big special interest dark money already out campaigning for it -- campaigning for it. the last time we had one of these contests, it wasn't going to be merrick garland, no, we're going to stop him dead, we're going to bring on this character gorsuch, and somebody spent $18 million on political ads to support that switch. somebody felt it was worth $18 million to have gorsuch and not tbarland on the supreme court -- garland on the supreme court. we don't know who that person was because of the dark money protections that are such a scourge on our democracy right now. that individual donor's hand is hidden behind all of this dark

money machinery, but we do know that there is a person, an entity that pent $18 -- spent $18 million to have it be gorsuch, not garland. so that's the track record for this. and here comes kavanaugh and the same machinery is up for him. so precleared by special interest, big dark interests spending money for him. who in their right mind would believe this guy is not predisposed in the direction of those special interests? it's almost impossible to imagine under these political circumstances. and when you look at his record on the d.c. circuit, this is a guy who has been on the warpath against environmental protection. this is a guy who is scott pruitt in robes. this guy is really something. now, he wasn't on the original

trump list, as i understand it, so maybe he's been spending his time on the d.c. circuit auditioning to this incredibly dominant special interest, the fossil fuel industry exhibiting his ability and willingness to make anti-environment decisions, make pro-corporate decisions, make pro-polluter decisions so he can inch his way maybe on the trump list for the supreme court. sure enough, not only is he on the list, he's now the nominee. his record is absolutely abysmal. you would have to call him an environmental extremist. it is truly, truly exceptional to think of all the different cases in which he's been involved. my colleague from hawaii is here so i'm not going to go through them all, but i'll have plenty of time as this goes forward to

explore these issues with him. but it's going to be very, very important to the big polluters to have kavanaugh instead of kennedy because when you look at the record in the supreme court, there is a considerable array of decisions on environmental matters in which justice kennedy had been the swing vote. so extract justice kennedy with his retirement, put in kavanaugh with his record from the d.c. circuit, his preclearance by the polluting interest and the fact that big money folks are already out there pushing for him, they are going to want something. i suspect that what they are going to want sw a reversal -- is a reversal of justice kennedy's position in favor of the environment and all the issues in which he was the 5-4 tiebreaker in favor of the environment and now all those cases will go back the other way and polluters will rule. polluters already rule here. we're incapable of doing

anything serious about climate change. polluters completely dominate over in the house. they've written this ridiculous letter telling the house that they shouldn't even do a carbon price and put all of their polluter front group names on this letterhead and, of course, trump still thinks that climate change is a hoax. you have a situation that the founding fathers were concerned about. you have enormous special interests with extraordinary power that dominates the senate and the house and that has completely got this administration by the choke chain and now what they want to do is to extend their power to the one part of government the founding fathers set up to be able to tell them no, to be required to follow the truth, to be required to look at real evidence, to subject witnesses to cross-examination, to provide discovery so you know what is really going on, and to have penalties if you try to tamper

and to have penalties if you lie. that's not the environment that big polluters like so they want to control it and i see the nomination of brett kavanaugh as an effort at basically agency capture at the supreme court level. we have to be very careful about this, mr. president, and with that, i yield to my distinguished colleague from hawaii. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i thank my colleague from rhode island, the senator from rhode island. mr. president, in hawaii we understand the importance of caring for our planet. the native hawaiian community embraced the idea of a respect and responsibility to care for the land in a way that protects our environment for future generations. that's why hawaii has led the way in enacting measures to fight climate change and safeguard our natural resources. in the last few years alone

hawaii set ambitious goals to move to 100% renewable energy and become carbon neutral. we were the first state in the country to commit to meeting the objectives of the paris climate agreement. in contrast, the trump administration has spent the last year and a half disparaging the idea of protecting our land and natural resources. donald trump has taken action after action to prioritize the interests of his supporters in the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our environment. the president filled his administration with appointees who refused to accept the realities of climate change. he named two environmental protection agency administrators, scott pruitt and andrew wheeler, who don't even believe in the e.p.a.'s mission of protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. and administration officials have weakened rules that

regulate pollution and protections for our natural resources. these actions have led to lawsuits by groups that embrace this policy and seek to protect our environment. these losses will be sought at by our courts. the outcomes will depend on an independent, fair, and unbiased judiciary. a number of these cases will come before the supreme court. in the october term, the court will be hearing a case called wire hauser company -- weirhauser company verse -- to decide whether the government can protect endangered species on private land. cases making their way through the court include california v. e.p.a. which challenges california environmental regulations on vehicle emissions. another case, west virginia versus e.p.a., which challenges obama's clean power plan. these cases raise crucial questions that would determine whether the government has the

power to protect our environment. the answers to those questions may very welcome from the supreme court. the president's nominee to the supreme court brett kavanaugh raises serious concerns about whether he would be that fair arbiter on environmental issues on these kinds of cases that will surely come before the supreme court. throughout his time on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, judge kavanaugh has argued for weakening environmental regulations, basically that benefit -- his decisions benefit industry over the environment. in coalition for responsible regulation v.r.e. e.p.a., judge kavanaugh argued that the e.p.a. should not regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act because the cost of business was more important than protecting the environment and public health from climate change.

he said that the e.p.a. should not include greenhouse gases in the interpretation of the statute that said e.p.a. cannot regulate any air pollutant because as far as judge kavanaugh was concerned, such a requirement or enabling the e.p.a. to do that would result in higher costs for businesses. judge kavanaugh did not consider the cost to the environment. in hawaii, we are already paying the price of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. our coastlines are disappearing, court of appeals in our -- corals in our oceans are dying, and catastrophic floods are becoming more frequent and more severe. the science behind the need to regulate greenhouse gases is clear. this message is lost on the president and apparently on brett kavanaugh as he argued for a very limited interpretation of the e.p.a.'s authority to regulate. in another environmental case, judge kavanaugh sided with the fossil fuel industry in its

expense of white stallion energy center versus e.p.a. in 2013. there he argued that under the clean air act, the e.p.a. should not, should not regulate toxic air pollutants from power plants without factoring in what those regulations would cost polluters. the majority disagreed with judge kavanaugh, saying the e.p.a.'s approach is clearly permissible, consistent with prior supreme court instruction and consistent with the purpose of the legislation, which was, of course, to protect the environment and the health and safety of people. when the case went to the supreme court, then-justice scalia quoted judge kavanaugh in his reversal. judge kavanaugh's opinion even went so far as to attempt to restrict the manufacture and sale of the noble fuel. in a 2012 case, grocery manufacturers association v. e.p.a., judge kavanaugh opposed

the e.p.a.'s grant of e-15 waivers. these waivers would permit the manufacture and sale of a type of renewable fuel which would help our nation decrease its dependence on foreign oil. in his dissent, judge kavanaugh argued that the e.p.a.'s rule permitting this renewable fuel would in effect force the production of renewable fuel. there is nothing in the statute that talked about forcing anybody to do anything. actually, the words in the statute is permit. permitting is not the same as forcing. of course judge kavanaugh certainly knew the difference before taking a position that supported the fossil fuel industry. judge kavanaugh's record on these environmental issues make it highly unlikely -- or highly likely that as a supreme court justice, he would favor fossil fuel interests over human health, renewable energy, and protecting our planet.

senators have a constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on all judicial nominations, particularly those to the highest court in the land, the supreme court. this responsibility requires us to take note of the fact that the trump administration continues to fill the court with deeply conservative, ideologically driven judges who will hold lifetime positions. the administration and their conservative allies expect that some of these judges will continue on to appellate courts and to the supreme court. this week, we will be voting on two nominees for federal appellate courts -- andrew oldham from texas for the fifth circuit and ryan bounds from oregon for the ninth circuit. i will be voting no on both of these nominations. andrew oldham has been an ideological warrior behind some of texas governor greg abbott's most extreme positions against a

woman's right to choose, against lgbtq people, and against solutions for the 800,000-plus dreamers put at risk for deportation by donald trump's rescission of daca. in 2013, as deputy solicitor general of texas, mr. oldham defeated dr defended a severe antichoice texas law, h.b. 2, that put restrictions on doctors delivering reproductive health care. the restrictive provisions were upheld by the fifth circuit but struck down in a subsequent u.s. supreme court case called whole women's health versus healther stead. in 2015, mr. oldham served as counsel of record for texas in its successive challenge to the deferred action for parental accountability for the dapa program. dapa would have provided protections for the parents of dreamers so families would not be cruelly separated as we are seeing with such terrible and

sad results today under donald trump's zero tolerance policy at the border. while mr. oldham was advising governor abbott on legislation, his boss supported or signed bills to restrict the rights of the lgbtq community by regulating bathroom usage in public schools and allowing faith-based groups to deny adoptive and foster parents who conflict with their beliefs. in his response to the senate judiciary committee's questions about these extreme positions, mr. oldham sought to discount them as merely advocacy positions on behalf of a client. that being the governor of the state of texas. well, mr. oldham's career shows otherwise. i turn now to ryan bounds who is nominated to a circuit court judgeship even though the president knew that mr. bounds did not have the approval of

either of his home state senators. the nominee himself admitted that oregon's two democratic senators, his home state senators, ron wyden and jeff merkley, played no role in his selection. the judiciary committee ignored the traditional blue-slip process which has been basically adhered to for over 100 years by holding a hearing on mr. bounds' nomination, even though neither of his home state senators returned their blue slips. the congressional research service could not find a single instance where a judicial nominee without at least one blue slip returned by a home state senator had a hearing or was confirmed by the senate, but nonetheless, mr. bounds' nomination proceeds apace. and writings that were not disclosed to the oregon selection committee that reviewed his application, mr. bounds published a number of very offensive articles on race

and gender while he was an undergraduate, and while these writings were brought to life by a third-party organization, mr. bounds should have disclosed them to the committee himself. his articles took disparaging positions on topics including race relations, opposition to multiculturalism, lgbtq rights, and labor rights. mr. president, in closing, i seriously question whether based on their full records these two nominees can be the impartial and nonideological judges we expect of life-tenured judges to our federal courts, that alone as in the case of these nominees to the supreme court -- to the circuit courts, excuse me. and circuit courts, we all know, are only one step removed from the supreme court. these questions of fairness and impartiality will continue to apply to judicial nominees as

long as the president continues to choose judges vetted by two far-right ideologically slanted organizations backed by millions of dollars, and these organizations are the federalist society and the heritage foundation. and this is certainly the case with mr. oldham and mr. bounds' nominations to the circuit courts, and judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. my colleague from rhode island, the senator from rhode island, went into length about these very well-funded entities that have spent millions to support neil gorsuch on the supreme court, and they are going to do the same thing with judge kavanaugh's appointment to the supreme court. mr. president, those who appear before federal circuit judges and of course the supreme court should be able to rely on a fair, impartial, objective

judge, free of ideological propensities. neither andrew oldham nor ryan bounds fit that bill. i will be voting no later this week on both of these nominees and urge my colleagues to vote against these confirmations as well. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i rise to express my strong concern about judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. i want to discuss his troubling record on the environment and what that means for people's health. judge kavanaugh has demonstrated that he simply doesn't believe that existing law allows new environmental threats to be addressed by any sort of regulation. i'm talking about existing law designed to protect human health and our environment. when you take a look at judge kavanaugh's record, one thing

becomes abundantly clear. judge kavanaugh has tried to weaken clean air act protections, even though the act controls pollutants like smog and carbon dioxide which contribute to asthma, heart attacks, and even premature death. they put our health at risk. judge kavanaugh offered an opinion which found that the e.p.a. had exceeded its authority when the agency directed upwind states to literally stop blowing smoke onto their downwind neighbors. the good news is that the supreme court was more sensible than judge kavanaugh. justices kennedy and roberts joined four others in a 6-2 decision to overturn judge kavanaugh's lower court ruling. writing for the majority, justice ginsburg found that the e.p.a. does have the power to act to protect people's health. i agree with the supreme court's 2012 decision, and so do most

americans. in april, 2018, a poll found that 75% of americans support even stricter limits on smog. what judge kavanaugh particularly doesn't like is that the clean air act specifically gives the environmental protection agency the right, the duty even, to regulate new pollutants that threaten people's health. he has objected to using the law to establish new programs to reduce mercury, a potent toxin that harms developing brains. in 2012, judge kavanaugh lashed out at tough standards for mercury, a toxin which has been found to harm children's development. judge kavanaugh's narrow view of the clean air act could be extremely damaging to our efforts to address climate change by regulating greenhouse gases. although the act does not mention greenhouse gases by name, the supreme court has held that the e.p.a. does have the power to regulate them. in fact, the court held that the

act requires the e.p.a. to address any air pollutants that are found toen gang human health, but judge kavanaugh still seems to have a problem with adding new pollutants to that list. this is even though judge kavanaugh believes to claim what every scientist tells us. that manmade climate change is real and is an enormous threat to our planet and our health. merely accepting climate science is too low a bar because even if judge kavanaugh believes in the urgent challenges of climate change, he doesn't seem to believe that there is an urgent need to address it as his record demonstrates. over the next few decades, the supreme court will have many opportunities to weigh in on how our government can work to protect our environment, particularly regarding climate change and the stakes are high. scientists tell us that in order to avoid dangerous global warming, we must reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to zero sometime between 2050 and 2065.

but in 2018, this year, global carbon emissions are still increasing, not decreasing. at the same time, president trump is attempting to backpedal on every commitment our country has made towards fighting global warming. he has pulled us out of the paris climate agreement, he's looking for ways to force utilities to keep expensive coal plants online, a move that would cost americans billions of dollars in increased electricity bills. all of these moves will hurt the environment and harm the health of americans, and in each case, judge kavanaugh's record shows that he's likely to act as nothing but an enabler. my state of minnesota is already experiencing the costs of climate change. the rains in minnesota are growing more intense leading to increased damage from flooding. as our winters grow milder and our summers warmer, plant and

human diseases are spreading. many scientists predict that the forests in my state will retreat rapidly leaving minnesota looking like kansas by the end of this century. but it does not need to be all bad news. a rapid transition to an energy-free energy sources is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change. but this change will bring economic opportunity to our country. we just need to rise to the challenge. in minnesota wind and solar and biofuels are already potent drivers of job growth. if judge kavanaugh succeeds in overturning the federal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the clean energy transition in our country will certainly slow. we will lose the competitive advantage to china and other economic rivals in the race to develop the technology and innovations of an affordable clean energy future. right now we have a president who pushes coal and fossil fuels

which unless they're carbon dioxide emissions are captured must become the energy sources of the past. president trump's energy policy is backward looking and puts our economic competitiveness at risk. but presidents only serve for a term or two which brings us back again to judge kavanaugh. hopefully we will be able to recover from the backward environmental policies of the trump administration. but supreme court justices serve for life. so we cannot afford a justice who is hostile to our environment and to human health. we cannot afford a justice who rejects action to fight climate change. we just don't have the time. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i would like to make a few comments about the topic that's in the news today and yesterday and hopefully will result in

some action by congress and the threats we face as a nation regarding our electoral system. one, i would like to recognize the presiding officer of the senate, senator rubio, for working with senator van hollen to come up with a piece of legislation called the deter act that i think will serve us well. if the director of national intelligence certifies that a foreign power, russia or anyone else is trying to attack our electoral infrastructure, they'll pay a heavy price. so this is july 17, 2018. on friday, last week, i think it was july -- don't know the dates. just got back from traveling. so frill of last week, a few -- friday of last week, a few days ago, the director of national intelligence said the following. the warning lights are blinking red again. today the digital infrastructure that serves this country is

literally under attack. how much more do we need as a body and as a nation to rally ourselves to act while there's still time? he indicated that our cyberspace strategies emphasize only defense, not offense as well invoking president reagan's cold war approach soviet union. mr. coats suggested if russia continued to try to take on the united states in the cyber arena, thenned administration should throw everything we have into that exercise. every member of congress, every member of the senate as well as the president has an obligation to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i am 1,000% convinced that the russians meddled in our election in 2016.

they did not change the outcome but they did disrupt our election. the bottom line is there they'rl up to it. if you don't believe me just ask director of national intelligence dan coats who is a former member of this body. in august of -- in august 2001, the 9/11 commission found statements from the c.i.a. that indicated that there was something afoot that the lights are blinking red but they couldn't point to bin laden specifically. as we look back, how much accountability should the bush administration have and how much accountability should congress have had back then? did we miss the warning signs regarding the september 11 attack? i would suggest that the chatter was strong and the threat was

real but nobody could really pinpoint it. here's what i'm suggesting. the chatter is strong. the threat is real. and we know exactly where it's coming from. the question is will the house and senate working with the president do anything about it. senator rubio and van hollen have chosen to try to do something about it. we're all eventually going to be in the history books. president trump said today that he believed our electoral infrastructure needs to be made more secure, not just electoral infrastructure, energy, financial services, we're under threat. and not just from russia. so i want to look forward. i heard senator mcconnell say today he'd like to find some bipartisan legislation that could come forward sooner rather than later to try to harden the infrastructure for the 2018

election. the bottom line here is that we all owe it to every voter in the country and all those who are serving in the intelligence community and the military to secure our election the best we can. so i'm hoping that we'll become team america just for a few minutes. i'm not asking my democrat friends to give president trump a pass. i'm not asking my republican colleagues to stop fighting for our agenda. i'm asking both parties to calm downing and focus on the common enemy. the common enemy is russia and countries like russia that want to undermine our democracy, pit us one against the other, and they did it in 2016. and if you believe dan coats, they're going to do it again. so this meeting recently with president trump and putin in my

view we missed an opportunity to really put the russians on notice. rather than look back, let's look forward. today president trump expressed confidence in our intelligence community. i'm glad to hear that. i trust them far more than i trust putin. it's just not america that putin has been trying to interfere with. it's france, germany, and everywhere else there's a democracy. president putin is trying to destroy alliances like the european union which i think has value to the united states. he's trying to break nato. and he's attacking us here at home. fake news, truly fake news, made up news articles to pit one american against the other, trying to steal e-mails from party officials and dump them into the public domain at critical times in the election.

what do i say to my republican colleagues? it was the democrats last time. it could be us next time. it was russia last time. and they're still up to it this time. but iran, north korea, china, fill in the blanks. we're all exposed. article 5 of nato charter says an attack against one is an attack against all. so i'd ask my colleagues tonight to think about that in terms of our democracy. an attack on one party should be an attack on all parties. the republican party should take no comfort or glee in the fact that our democratic friends were compromised in a very embarrassing way that hurt them. nobody changed vote totals. but can you imagine how we would feel if the inner circle of the president was hacked and at a crucial time in the election the information exposed. to my friends in the media,

you've got to make a hard decision. how much do you empower this? how much do you aid a foreign government by publishing this information? i believe we're at war in many ways. we're not at war in a direct way with russia, but the cyber attacks are to me a hostile act against our country just as much if they had launched a conventional attack. and they're going to continue to do this until they pay a price. i would like us to come together not only harden our infrastructure to make sure that 2018 cannot be compromised by a foreign power but also to make countries like russia pay a price. senator van hollen, senator rubio have a very good piece of legislation that basically says if the director of national intelligence certifies that a foreign power like russia is continuing to interfere in our election, that we'll up sanctions. we'll make it harder, not easier on that foreign power.

it's russia today. it could be somebody else tomorrow. and it probably already is. so rather than taking the moment and dividing us about what president trump said or didn't say, why don't we use this as an opportunity to listen to the professionals, not the politicians. senator rubio is on the intelligence committee. i'm very proud of the work they've accomplished. they made a bipartisan finding that russia did meddle in the 2016 election with a view of trying to help trump over clinton but there's no evidence that changed the outcome. the bottom line for me is that if we don't come together now, this is end of july, the 17th of july. we have precious days left to take action that could protect the 2018 election cycle. the worst thing that can happen in a democracy, for somebody's

vote to be stolen or the information provided to the public be tainted in a fashion by some foreign entity to pit one american against another. we do enough of that ourselves. we don't need anybody else's help. and the record is clear in terms of 2016 that russia was all over the place spreading disinformation, trying to create conflict within the democratic primary, within the republican primary, and during the general election. november will be here before you know it. here's would we have -- here's what we have to ask ourselves as a body and eventually be held accountable by the public in history. what did we do in july to answer the alarm raised by director dan coats about the red lights --

the warning lights are blinking red? i see attacks on critical infrastructure going on today and i will expect them to continue. and we need to up our game as a nation. i don't know how any of us can go to our constituents in november and say that we answered dan coats' call if we do nothing. so i would hope that senator mcconnell and senator schumer could find a way to come up with a common agenda maybe starting with the rubio-van hollen bill to see if there's common ground to deal with a common problem. i would ask president trump not to look backward but to look forward. i have no doubt that you won the election, mr. president, in 2016. the russians did indeed as

clinton you did but what they're up to now can jeopardize our democracy. and we're just a stone's throw away from them changing vote totals. senator -- senator rubio knows this better than i because he is on the intelligence committee, but they are already infiltrateing voter registration files. it would not be much of a leap to have some votes flip through cyber attacks. so we have a chance in the coming days, working together, not against each other, to find solutions to this problem. i'm sure whatever we come up with will not be perfect, but at least we tried. and one thing i cannot live with is not trying. i have known dan coats for well over a decade