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.

secretary pompeo. the entire national security team. senator burr, senator warren, senator rubio, they all tell us the same thing. our critical infrastructure is under attack by foreign powers, russia being the leader, and the question for us is what do we do about it? i'm hoping next week that the president will call the congress together in a bipartisan fashion to come up with some preventative measures to protect our infrastructure when it comes to the november election, and that we as a nation try to figure out what the rules of engagement are going to be. not just defend ourselves from aggression but punish the aggressor. i don't have all of the answers. i'm not suggesting this is my area of expertise because it is

not, but i am smart enough to know that what russia did in 2016, they're going to continue until somebody makes them pay a heavy price, and it's just not russia. it could be iran, china, north korea, other bad actors. i don't know how as a body we can live with ourselves if we don't try to heed dan coats' warnings, and they are just not given by him. they are given by those who work for him for nonpolitical, who made it their life's work to find ways to protect this nation. so, mr. president, we have a chance to bring the congress together, challenge us to work with you to find solutions to this looming threat. better ways to defend america's critical infrastructure when it

comes to our 2018 election and challenge us to work with you. i hope we would be smart enough to meet that challenge, and i hope you will issue that challenge. you're the most special person in our constitutional democracy when it comes to national security. you are the commander in chief. you rightly criticize president obama for being slow when it came to reacting to russian interference in 2016. i'm sure that was a hard call for president obama. but there is no doubt in my mind that you and the senate and the house are now on notice by your own intelligence services that russia is interfering now and will continue to do so up to 2018 and beyond unless somebody stops them. so at a minimum, we should come up with defensive measures that are available to us, and we need to as a nation deal with this

threat. i'm not worried about a foreign power taking over our country in a conventional military fashion. i am worried about foreign powers and terrorist organizations using cyber attacks to cripple our country, our economy, our finances, our energy, but most importantly the heart and soul of democracy, which is free and fair election. putin wants no part of a free and fair election. all of us should want very much to have a free and fair election in 2018, and we're not going to have one unless we push back together and push back now. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on finance be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6042 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6042, an act to amend title 19 of the social security act to delay the reduction in federal medical assistance percentage for medicaid personal care services, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to consideration of the measure.

mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, july 18. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. i ask that following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the oldham nomination, and that the time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided, that at 2:00 p.m., notwithstanding rule 22, the senate vote on confirmation of the oldham nomination with no intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the

senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that -- i see senator sanders. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of our democratic colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: at the helsinki summit yesterday, president trump embarrassed our country. he undermined american values. and openly sided with russians russians -- russia's authoritarian leader vladimir putin against the u.s. intelligence community's unanimous assessment that russia interfered in our 2016

presidential election. john mccain is right when he says it was, and i quote, one of the most disgraceful performances by an american president in memory. the damage inflicted by trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate, but it is clear that the summit in helsinki was a tragic mistake, end quote. that's not bernie sanders. that is former republican presidential candidate senator john mccain of arizona. today after a strong international backlash, trump in a bizarre statement claimed he misspoke and of course blamed the media for reporting what he

said. even now, he could not help but suggest that the electoral interference, quote, could be other people also, end quote, and not just russia. today we face an unprecedented situation of a president who, for whatever reason, refuses to acknowledge an attack on american democracy. either he really doesn't understand what has happened or he is under russian influence because of compromising information they may have on him or because he is ultimately more sympathetic to russia's authoritarian oligarchic form of society than he is to american democracy. whatever the reason, congress must act and must act now to demand that the president of the

united states represent the interest of the american people and not russia. let us be clear -- russia has been meddling not only in u.s. elections but in the elections of other democracies, united kingdom, france, germany, to name just a few. russia's goal is to advance its own interests by weakening the transatlantic alliances of democracy -- of democracies that arose after world war ii while also inflaming internal divisions in each of these countries. we should also be clear that this interference is directed from the very highest levels of the russian government. last week, special counsel robert mueller announced a set of indictments of 12 members of russia's military intelligence service, the g.r.u.

there can be no doubt that, given the nature of russian government, vladimir putin was directly involved in this effort. but our concern is not only what has already happened. it is what could happen in the future. last week, director of national intelligence dan coats, a former republican senator, raised the alarm on growing cyber attack threats against the u.s. in a range of areas, including federal, state, and local government agencies, the military business and academia, saying the situation is at a, quote-unquote, critical point. he said russia is, quote, the most aggressive foreign actor, no question, and they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy, end of quote.

coats compared the warning signs to those the united states faced ahead of the september 11 terrorist attacks. this is a clear and present threat to our democratic system and those of our allies. ultimately, of course, we want a peaceful relationship with russia. we do not want a return to the cold war, and we surely do not seek conflict, but at the same time we must be very clear that we oppose what putin is doing, both in terms of his foreign policy and his domestic policy. on foreign policies, we will not accept russia, russian meddling in the elections of democratic countries, stoking political tensions, or promoting hatred and suspicion of immigrants and

minorities and trying to undermine long-standing alliances between democratic allies. in 2014, in violation of international law, russia invaded neighboring ukraine and annexed the crimea region. russia has assassinated political opponents abroad, most recently through the use of poison in salisbury, england, on a former spy and his daughter, a chemical attack that endangered the lives of many, many civilians. the british government concluded that this atrocious attack was likely carried out by russia's military intelligence service. domestically, putin has undermined democracy in russia, crushing free speech, jailing political opponents, harassing and assassinating journalists

who criticized him, and increasing persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the lgbtq community. president trump had an opportunity to speak out on all of these issues to confront putin about these destabilizing and inhumane policies, but he chose not to. well, mr. president, if the president of the united states is not going to do it, congress must. the congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to russian election meddling in our country and in other democracies. the congress must move aggressively to protect our election system from interference by russia or any foreign power and work closely

with our democratic partners around the world to do the same. the congress must demand that the sanctions against russia that were passed last year be fully implemented. the congress must make it clear that we will not accept any interference with the ongoing investigation of special counsel mueller such as the offer of preemptive pardons or the firing of deputy attorney general rob rose enseen and the president -- rosenstein and the president must cooperate with this investigation. and finally, the congress must make it clear that president trump, that his job is to protect the values that millions of americans struggled, fought, and died to defend the values of democracy, justice, and equality. tweets, comments, and press

conferences are fine. but we need more from republican senators now. it is time for the senate to rein in the president's dangerous behavior. if their leadership won't allow votes on dealing with this extraordinarily important matter, then my republican colleagues must join with democrats to make it happen or all of their words are worthless. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: the events of the last 36 hours, particularly the

issue that now dominates the media coverage in america and our political debates here on the floor cause me to come here today to the floor of the senate to speak for a few minutes to my constituents back in the state of florida but anyone else who clearly should care about this issue across our country for it's one that impacts our nation in ways that i don't think have been fully vetted or are clearly understood by enough people. the idea that the russian federation at the command of vladimir putin interfered in our election is something now most americans are familiar with. it's been the topic of ongoing conversation, discussion, debate, argument, and dispute pretty much since the fall of 2016 and to the present day. it has morphed into something that has become domestically more of a partisan issue. hard to believe if you were able

to get in a time machine and go back just five years and tell someone that russian interference in on our -- in our election would become a partisan issue or along the lines we say it play out now, few would believe you. i will spend very little time today talking about the past and saying this -- you guys did this on the other side of the aisle before we did and vice versa because it isn't constructive and means nothing to the future. but it wasn't long ago in a major presidential debate where the republican nominee mitt romney pointed to russia as the greatest geo political challenge of the united states and he was roundly mocked not just by president obama who was running for reelection and subsequently won but many in the press. i don't say that for purposes of drawing you guys were wrong back then kind of argument. i say it solely for purposes of understanding how far we have come and where we are today. by the way, i wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. i would think, i believe, by and large that the greatest geo

political challenge for the united states and the world in the 21st century will be whether china's rise is peaceful and productive or not. but when the story of the 21st century is written, there will be some chapters in that book about vladimir putin and russia. and it is a topic that increasingly dominates our domestic debate today in ways that i think require more careful examination and understanding if we are to make from it good public policy and good decisions for the country. i think it begins from something that i talked about last week and that is understanding the nature of this conflict. and it begins with a man vladimir putin. i don't know the man, but i know enough about it and have certainly learned enough about him to make some pretty clear assessments that i believe in deeply. the first is that this is a man raised in cold war soviet union where people were trained to be suspicious about each other and who then went on to a career in the intelligence agency of that

country, the k.g.b. and the result is that he is by nature and by all accounts both a suspicious and a paranoid individual. as someone probably would be if they spent their whole life lying to other people. you begin to assume everyone is a liar. this is a man who made his living by deceiving westerners and manipulating them. he also grew up in a society where neighbors spied on each other and kids turned their parents in and you never really knew who the other person you were talking to was. but if you were reported as someone who was against the government, your career, your ability to go to school, and the quality of life for your family would be deeply impacted. there's no way you grew up in a society like that and an environment like that and then later on go and work as a spy and it's not somehow framed the way you operate or think for years to come. the other thing that's pretty clear for reasons i don't fully understand because i don't know him, i don't know his family, i don't know his upbringing, but he takes everything deeply personal. so any sort of effort against russia is not a geo political

decision or something that he can depersonnallize. he seems to absorb all these things as a personal attack on him. and as a result, i think he's come to view himself as russia, as the embodiment of the russian federation -- federation. you add to all of that his views as a leader. it's interesting, because if you go back to putin putin just 15 years ago, he wasn't nearly as confident or as bold as he is at this moment, and there are a lot of reasons for it, but this is a person who accidentally became the leader of russia. he was not a -- he is kind of almost a guy that stumbled into the role because of a series of circumstances. hardly known before he had started his career as prime minister and went on to the presidency, but nonetheless someone who wound up in this position almost by accident, but since then has solidified his hold. there is a vladimir putin from the first time around and a vladimir putin from the second time around, but one thing is

abundantly clear from his public statements, and that is that he viewed the end of the cold war as a disaster for russia. and not for the reasons some people think. not an ideological rationale, but in russia which already has a deep and long history in its geopolitics of feelings ignored by asia, ignored and disrespected by the world. at the end of the cold war, russia was a nation that faced incredible challenges. imagine for a moment if you are in the government or living in the soviet union and you oversee this incredible empire that covers all of this territory and all of these nations a spirit of influence and overnight it all evaporates. and overnight all of those countries in your periphery begin to join the other side. they join nato, they start having elections, they start becoming allies of the united states, and your territory shrinks. so one day ukraine is part of the soviet union. the next day it's its own country. then you add to that over the next 12-15 years the sort of emergence of the united states for much of that period of time

as the world's sole superpower while russia was struggling to have an economy or even be relevant in the global discourse, and you come to see that vladimir putin viewed that period of time in world history up to the present day, as an example of a strong america and a strong west abusing on a weak russia. because this is ultimately how he views life and how he views the world as a battle between the weak and the strong where the strong prey on the week, and you know who he wants. and so because of all of that and because he is paranoid and because he is suspicious, he believes the united states, for example, is behind the protests in 2011 that broke out in the streets against his rule. he believes the united states is behind what is happening in ukraine. and all of this leads him to the two goals that he has, and there are two goals that have become crystal clear, especially beginning in his second time around as president. a lot of people forget he was president, he left, and his

hand-picked successor served for a period of time, and then he came back in the second time. it is the second putin that we're now dealing with. since that time, two things have become pretty clear about his goals. first is he wants to reestablish russia once again as a world power like in the time of the soviet union on par with the united states of america. now, he can't do that economically. a lot of people don't realize this, but russia is the ninth or tenth largest economy in the world. to put it in perspective, the italian economy, and italy is a great country. the italian economy with less territory, less oil, less people. the italian economy is bigger than the russian economy. it's about equal to the spanish economy. i would dare say, for example, my home state of florida has an economy now of about a trillion dollars. russia is at $2 trillion. there are constituents in this country have that an economy bigger than russia. so he is not a global economic superpower. so the only thing that makes him

a global superpower is the fact that they possess thousands of nuclear weapons and conventional military capabilities that are significant and have improved as he has invested in it. and he quickly realized how i'm going to become relevant in the world again is not through my economic prowess or even through my diplomatic. the way i'm going to become relevant in the world again is i am going to use my conventional weapons, my conventional capabilities along with some asystemmette rickal ones -- asymmetric al ones to subject myself and show people that russia and vladimir putin are strong again, and that's what he has done. it actually began back in 2008 with the invasion of georgia. we now commemorate the tenth anniversary of that. but it also plays out in his intervention in syria or the annexation of crimea. and i believe would have been moving forward into kiev and broader ukraine had there not been the e.u., u.s. sanctions

against them as a result. so his first objective is to make russia a world power again. the second objective that he thinks is tied to the first is he has to make america weaker. because vladimir putin is a strong believer in zero-sum propositions. not an idea that somehow we can both be better off or there can be a win-win, but a true believer in the idea that in order for you to be stronger, in order for me to be stronger or us to be stronger, you have to be weaker, and that plays out in order for russia to be stronger, america, who he views as his greatest geopolitical competitor, has to be weaker. and that's why they chose to interfere in the 2016 election, and the notion -- first of all, let me just say this. i don't think vladimir putin interfered in our elections. i don't believe he interfered in our elections. i know it for a fact. by the way, so does everyone who has looked at this issue and

knows anything about it. there is zero doubt about it. what i think we're missing in our debate is the why and the how. the why is not what people think. he may have had a personal preference in an election, but his interference and his efforts to interfere in our elections began well before the president of the united states descended down those escalators in new york in the summer of 2015. they intended to do this long before that period of time. his number one objective was to ensure that no matter who was elected president of the united states, that person would assume office under a cloud of nagging and persistent controversy. he wanted to weaken them internally because as an intelligence officer, he understood the power of being weakened from within. he understood it so much that he protects his image in russia, jealously he guards it, disclosing very little about himself or anything about his

personal life, never putting himself in a position to appear vulnerable, only showing pictures of things that he wants people to see and actually allowing no dissent, to the point where a substantial number of the people who opposed vladimir putin are not out of politics, they are not even in jail. they are dead. the world sadly, the story of the world is littered with story after story of a russian opposition figure found dead in his hotel room, strangled, fell out of a window, poisoned. it happens over and over again. these things are not a coincidence. but he wanted to weaken whoever the next president of the united states was. and no matter how this election turned out in november, whether the president was named trump or clinton, we would be dealing with a president right now under a cloud of controversy because he had it lined up either way. the second thing he wanted to do as part of the first part is undermine confidence in our institutions, and i mean all of our institutions. our elections, the media, our political figures, everything.

and it's extended to important institutions -- the f.b.i., our intelligence agencies. undermine confidence so that no country could be believed. so that the president is under controversy, divide us against each other so there is no authorities in which we trust. some of this was already happening in our country but they had the nuanced understanding of it to be able to exploit it. and third as part of the first and the second is to really drive divisions. not just to weaken the president and undermine confidence in our institutions, but look for ways to do so by exacerbateing preexisting tensions in our society. these were the aims of the russian interference campaign. beyond everything else, it was not about electing one candidate or the other. it was about these things, and it would be hard to see what happened yesterday and their reaction to it and not conclude that this effort succeeded his -- exceeded his wildest

expectations. today the president of the united states has operated for the better part of a year and a half under a persistent cloud of controversy. on the one side, political opponents intimating that his presidency is illegitimate, that his election was not real, that he -- i heard words thrown around yesterday like treason. on the other side, a complete denial that there was any interference in the undermining publicly of important institutions in our country like the federal bureau of investigation, which by the way is made up of thousands of employees, the vast and enormous majority of whom are patriotic americans who keep us safe every single day. undermining confidence in our institutions is tied to that point i just made, not to mention the fact that increasingly americans get their news and information from someone who tells you what you already believe, confirm your bias. it drives that even further,

driving, of course, our divisions. there is no way you can see what has happened in this country over the last year and a half, which is already happening, by the way, and for which all of us in american politics are somewhat responsible for, and not conclude that vladimir putin's plan to undermine the next presidency, no matter who it was, to undermine confidence in our institutions, and to drive divisions in our country has not been wildly successful, at a very low price. interesting yesterday, in one of the interviews that he did, i think it was mr. wallace at fox news asked him about this, and his response was none of the things that were leaked were untrue, as if to almost say with a wink, even if we colluded, or not colluded, even if we hacked and did all these things and interfered, so what? we didn't lie. these were all true things. so what have i heard in response to some of this? i will not spend a lot of time addressing some of the arguments

made by the president's opponents. there is an ongoing investigation conducted by mr. mueller which i believe should reach its conclusion naturally. as he continues to do his work, i have said this and i repeat it. it is in the best interests of the president of the united states and of our country for mr. mueller to do his work without interference and be able to conclude it. no matter where you line up or who you voted for, we should all want to know the truth. that truth will ultimately have to be proven in a court of law. from his history, we have no reason to believe mr. mueller will not conduct a full, thorough, and fair investigation. ultimately it is truth and the light of the truth that will help us overcome a lot of these croifers that we find today. so any accusations until that has happened are unfair and unwise and counterproductive. but one of the arguments i have heard from people on my side of the aisle is that this is not a big deal because everybody does it, and if by everybody does it

you mean everybody spies, yes, virtually every nation on earth has an intelligence agency, and some do a better job than others, but do not be misled. everyone does not do what we saw in 2018. our problem in 2018 is not that the russians spy on the americans or that the americans spy on the russians, the chinese spy on us. our problem in 2018 is that the russian federation under the command of vladimir putin weaponized information. one thing is to gather information. another thing is to strategically leak it in an effort to influence the domestic politics of another country, and that is what vladimir putin ordered done for purposes of undermining the next president, whoever it was, and undermining confidence in our elections and our institutions. so they hack into e-mails, they release these e-mails through a third party, it's picked up in the media, it's reported, and then we fight about it. that's what they have done.

they have done it in other countries for years. they did it somewhat in the cold war, and they did it in 2016, and they will do it again. let there be no doubt, they will do it again. and then they -- after they have released all this stuff, they used their army of bots and trolls to drive this information online, on platforms, particularly trying to drive it to certain groups and people and divide us even further against each other. one of the most dangerous things they did that's now open record in the indictment issued last week by the mueller investigation is they probed the electoral systems of our states and counties. and a lot of people are saying well, they didn't get in the ballot box, absolutely. i tell you now with full confidence that the reason why president trump won has nothing to do with vladimir putin, nothing. but i think we're wrong if we think that all we should be worried about is the ability to change votes at the ballot box, because if they can somehow change people's registration and enough people on election day go

vote and are told you aren't allowed to vote, their trolls will be ready to drive that news out there on election day. and then come election day, no matter who won, the other side will say well, there was these weird things that happened down there in some county or some state, and so the election is not valid. imagine that for a moment. imagine an election like 2000 in my home state decided by less than 600 votes, and imagine that in a republican county a bunch of democrats went to vote on election day and were told you can't vote today because you're not registered. if that happened to enough people, the russian trolls would jump all over it. they would start driving it on the news. it would be featured on cable news that day. that night if they lost, they would be arguing the election was rigged. the electoral officials in the republican county rigged the elections, all driven by the russians. and vice versa, by the way. that is the danger, that we can one day potentially elect a president of the united states who swears into office with a substantial number of people believing that the election was

stolen, undermining not just the president at that point but our very system of democracy. that's what they did. and anyone who tells you that anyone who does that is lying. everyone does not do that. the united states does not do these things. i'm a big critic of the chinese, but the chinese don't do these things. i have other problems with them. the the belgians don't do this. the japanese don't do this. only one country in the world has weaponized information like this to interfere in the election of an adversaries. that's the russian federation under vladimir putin. now, the other argument i've heard is, well, what's wrong with better relations are russia? nothing is wrong with better relations with russia. i'll tell you right now the world would be a better place, a more peaceful place, our lives would be a little easier, we would be stronger if somehow we had a partner in the russian federation that we could work with to deal with things like

terrorism and proliferation of nuclear weapons and iran and all sorts of issues, north korea. we all wish we had that, but the reason why that isn't happening frankly is not us, it's vladimir putin. because for vladimir putin, better relations is not what he's interested in. he is not seeking a partnership with the united states. what he is seeking is geopolitical perceptional equality. he wants to be viewed on par with america both himself as a leader and the country as a whole, and he believes the only way he can do that is to pull himself up and tear us down. and i've frankly got to tell you, it's very difficult to have better relations with somebody who believes the only way they can be better off is for you to be worse off. and as long as the russian federation is led by someone who has total control of their government and has these views, it's going to be very difficult to have better relations. that does not mean that we don't meet with vladimir putin.

anyone who says that the meeting alone is wrong is not being wise and, frankly, disingenuous. 90% of the nuclear weapons on this planet are possessed by the united states and the russian federation, and that is -- that alone is reason for us to engage with vladimir putin. we have to. we have no choice. but we should engage with him with clear eyes and a clear understanding of what he's up to and what he's trying to do. and we should engage with a very clear understanding that this is a man that throughout his life as the leader of the russian federation has never passed up an opportunity to exploit the weakness of an adversaries or a -- adversary or a competitor. every time he sees weakness and the opportunity to gain advantage, he will take it. and any engagement with him that doesn't understand that is a dangerous one. so i have no problem with having better relations with russia, and frankly i'm not one of these

people that is over the top on russia to the extent of the threat they pose. they have nuclear weapons, but we have bigger threats than russia, but they are very significant ones that need to be addressed. and so moving forward is what i hope we'll focus on. mueller will continue his work, the intelligence committee that i sit on will continue its work, but we are going to have an election in a few months, and we're going to continue to have elections every few years, hopefully forever, and there is no reason to believe that they will not try to do this again. and that is why earlier this year, along with senator van hollen, i proposed the deter act, which is the only thing that vladimir putin understands is deterrence and what the deter act is is says here is a list of sanctions. and these sanctions will go into effect immediately if the director of national

intelligence determines that russia is once again interfering in our elections. so that before he even does it, he has a very clear understanding of what the price is going to be. men like vladimir putin operate as cost-benefit analyzers. they weigh the costs against the benefits, and then they decide what action to take. and there's no doubt that in 24016 he saw -- that in 201 he saw that the costs of what he did were very low. he thought he could hide t he thought by the time it was figured out, it would be too late and he thought that america would be in such disaray, it couldn't get its act together. but he saw the benefits as extraordinary and so he took action and he'll do it again if he doesn't think the costs are high enough. and so my hope is that over the next few days and short period of time we will figure out a way working together as americans on this issue to set aside all the stuff about yesterday -- that probe will continue, our work on the intelligence committee will

continue -- and focus on the future. no matter how you feel about 2016, who among us would say that if russia interferes in 2018 or any year for that matter they shouldn't be punished? and who among us would say that if we had the opportunity to put into law strong consequences for interference that could deter such an attack we wouldn't want to do it? and so that's why i hope that no matter how you may feel about the other things that are going on, the senate can come together and work together to pass this law. because otherwise we are leaving our nation vulnerable. and i'll close with something i said back in october of 2016. and that is, vladimir putin is not a republican and he's not a democrat, he's not a conservatives and he's not a liberal. do not ascribe to him any of the attributes of american politics. he interfered in 23016 -- in 2016 in order to create chaos

and controversy, not to elect any particular party or individual. that was by far his strongest motivator. and he'll do it again. and i believe if left unchecked he'll target members of the senate who he thinks are his opponents. he'll target members of congress. eventually he'll even target our debates outside of elections. i believe if left unchecked, they're going to take the next step and not just leak information, they're going to make it up. they're going to come up with nine e-mails that are real and embed a tenth that is fake, and it's going to be reported, and it might cost someone their election or might cost someone enough heartache that they have to resexual assault information is a very powerful weapon. you've already seen if you go online the ability to produce these deep fake videos that look real, that only an expert could say are fake, someone saying or doing something they never did. imagine in the hands of a nation-state leaked two days

before an election. they're going to do these things. it is going to happen if we do not deter it from happening. and if we do not prepare our nation and the american people. and if you think this is chaotic, then allow that to happen without informing us and preparing us and strengthening us and putting in place deterrents against that. then you will know chaos, a chaos that will shake us to our core. and so i hope that we can take this small but important step of coming together as americans and protecting our elections for years to come against an adversary that's determined to tear us down in order to build himself up. this is reality. this is the world and the threat we face. and the sooner we address it, the safer our nation and our people will be. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that my indiana tern careen in a

velazquez be granted privileges of the greer for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: the nomination of ryan wesley bounds is just the latest of attacks based on a strategy of converting the united states from a nation that is based and organized and fights for the principle of we the people to one that bows to the powerful and the privileged. his nomination has already strained and degraded the senate's blue slip tradition as our colleagues rush to pack our colleagues with extremist judges to advance that division, not of judges who call balls and strikes but of judicial activists who want to rewrite the constitution, rewrite it to put down workers, to put down health care rights, to lay out

and tear down consumer rights, women's rights, so many opportunities and empowerments diminished in the favor of the privileged and the powerful. that's what's going on with the packing of the court, and this deed -- this deed of putting forward this nomination on this floor tonight changes 100-year tradition of comity in the u.s. senate and a recognition that the home state senators have something to say important about the integrity of the individual being put forward. at stake in this confirmation is the senate's advice and responsibility -- advice and consent responsibility as applied through the blue slip tra i guess did. -- tradition, a tradition that

incentivizes consultation and bipartisan cooperation. but you take away the blue slip tradition and you diminish the incentive for consultation and cooperation. now, this tradition has existed since 1917, 101 years ago senator thomas heartwick objected to a court nominee, writing his objection on a blue slip of paper. and thus the name. and no judge -- no judge until now 101 years later has ever been confirmed by this body, not having received a single blue slip from a home state senator, until this administration just five have been confirmed without both blue slips being returned. and this tradition has been

honored by both parties. it's been a bipartisan tradition when the democrats are in power, republicans wanted it to be honored. when the republicans were in power, the republicans honored it. in fact, in 2009, at the start of president obama's term with democrats controlling both the executive office and this chamber, my republican colleagues wrote a letter and they said they expect the blue slip tradition to be observed evenhandedly and regardless of party affiliation. and it wasn't just that letter that we've heard from over time. we've heard from chairman grassley. chairman grassley wrote clearly

about this. he said, for nearly a century the senate of the senate judiciary committee has brought nominees up only after both home senators have returned and signed what's known as a blue slip. and he said this tradition is designed to encourage outstanding nominees and consensus. and he continued on, i appreciate the value of the blue -slip process and intend to honor it. he intends to honor it, he said, in 2015. but putting this nomination through the committee dishonored the tradition, bringing it to the floor dishonors this tradition. it doesn't honor it because it violates it.

during the time that president obama was in office, republicans used the blue slips to block 18 nominees, and nominees never progressed without two of those slips returned. we can turn back to the former chair of the judiciary committee, orrin hatch, writing in "the hill" -- he said, weakening or eliminating the blue-slip process would sweep aside the last remaining check on the president's judicial appointment power. he said, anyone serious about the senate's constitutional advice and consent role knows how disastrous such a move would be.

so the current chair and the former chair were pretty clear, and now they tend to tear it down. a moment of opportunity to sacrifice a century of comity and consultation. the clear factor is, one principle when in the minority, and tearing down that principle when in the majority. one principle for obama's nominees. a different principle for trump's nominees. where has all the honor and principle gone? -- in this chamber? no hearings for obama nominees without two slips.

hearings for four trump nominees without blue slips. now, the majority leader helped drive this change. he said, republicans now will treat a blue slip, quote, as simply notification of how you're going to vote. that's what he said. it's simply notification. so it's up to the chair of the committee, the former chair of the judiciary committee, and all the members who signed that 2009 letter saying how important this was to this chamber to stand up and actually exhibit some trace of consistency between the

position put forward just a slight amount of time ago. so now he's coming to the floor for a vote. this is a nominee on which there was no consultation. we had a committee out in oregon set up by my senior colleague, senator wyden. we told the white house wait to make your choice until after the committee submits its list. this is the oregon bipartisan -- bipartisan judicial selection committee. but the president was in such a hurry to pack the court, he didn't wait for consultation. i happen to have heard a member across the aisle say, well, the white house said they consulted.

well, let me tell you, they didn't consult. they didn't ask me. they didn't ask senator wyden. what does that mean to the white house? is it the case that everything we've heard in the last year and a half is accurate out of the white house? because i have heard virtually every member across the aisle say otherwise. so here you have the two of us having asked the white house to wait so they could get some consultation and get some advice from oregon, but they didn't wait. so that was certainly the wrong thing to do. and then at the end of 2017, the

nominations go back, and the white house has to resubmit them. and we said here's another chance for you, another chance for you to honor the concept of consultation. and what happened? the white house did it again they didn't care about consultation. so if we hear from our colleagues tonight and in the days to come this week that they're going to push this nomination forward, don't expect consultation from any future president when you happen to be in the minority, because that's what you're striking down, a tradition that encouraged, expected, supported and promoted

consultation. now have no doubt this isn't an ordinary nominee. this nominee, when asked about anything else in his record that they should know might be inflammatory, didn't breathe a word about key writings of his past. when this nominee was asked about his views on diversity and how they might have differed from before, he didn't breathe a word about his former views, and maybe his present views. so what did this nominee say on diversity? he said students who worked to promote diversity, quote, contribute more to restricting consciousness, aggravating intolerance, and pigeonholing cultural identities than many a

nazi book burning. that was his attack on diversity. that wasn't all he said. he said diversity training is a pestilence that stalks us. that isn't the only topic that he weighed in in such a way as to be way out of the mainstream, exhibiting massive intolerance for diversity here in the united states where we come from every corner of the world. he also said when it came to the process of the campus holding accountable young men involved in sexual harassment, young men involved in rape, he said, and i quote, there is nothing really inherently wrong with the university failing to punish an

alleged rapist. now i see my colleague here to speak, and i appreciate him coming down, coming down to speak on the principle of the blue slips and how to enshrines cooperation. so i'm delighted he's here. i'll have more to say later, but at this moment i defer to my colleague, senator blumenthal. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to, first of all, say how honored and grateful i am to follow my friend and distinguished colleague who has outlined some of the reasons that i will vote against this nominee. but i respect especially his raising this issue of the blue-slip approval process which is probably unknown to the vast

majority of americans. so let me begin as a member of the judiciary committee, as a litigator who has spent about 40 years in the courtroom for federal, state judges of all kinds all over the country, why the blue slip from a united states senator matters to justice. we debated this issue in the judiciary committee as a time-honored tradition that senators be consulted, that they return a blue slip -- that is approval of a nominee -- from their states. and that is because senators like senator merkley and senator

wyden are rooted in those states. they know the lawyers. many of us are lawyers. they know the colleagues of people who may be nominated to the united states district court or the court of appeals in the jurisdiction that covers the areas that they serve. they know the lawyers who have appeared before these judges, their qualifications, and sometimes their faults. and they know also the opinions professionally of these lawyers. their records in court and how they have performed. and they know their character, their integrity. and they know their records

outside the courtroom as well. and you have just heard tonight from senator merkley some statements that are extraordinarily revealing. the american people deserve to know them, and my colleagues deserve and need to consider them. the blue-slip process for generations has ensured that judges are well suited to the states where they will preside. so the majority's decision to ignore this process and for the first time very, very significantly to ignore it with respect to both senators from a state is a precedent that is profoundly damaging to this

institution and to american justice. it isn't about us. it isn't about our prerogatives or our pride. it isn't about our hurt feelings or sense of insult. the sun will rise tomorrow on all of us in this chamber, and we will go on to do the business of this nation. but for many people who will go into a courtroom where ryan bounds may preside, they will experience a lesser standard of justice than they deserve, a lesser standard of justice than most judges provide.

and they deserve better. they are ultimately the losers. not we. it's not about us. the american people are the losers by destroying this principle and norm that senators must approve when the nominee is from their own states. only rarely, very rarely a fraction of the nominees are found unacceptable by the senator from that state. i think in my eight years here there have been, in my experience, maybe a few, and with good reason. but this precedent shows that no principle is safe and no norm is inviolate in the right-wing fringes campaign to remake the

federal judiciary and to remake it in the image of the far right in this country. they have an ideological agenda, and no respect for quality in deciding who will serve on our judiciary. and those groups that are trying to remake the court of appeals and the federal district courts, that is remake judges at the lower levels, whether it's the federal society or the heritage foundation, are also responsible for the president's decision to make himself a puppet of their recommendation, letting them pick judges who meet their anti-choice and anti-health care litmus test.

those tests really are president trump's tests. he said i'm going to appoint judges who are pro-life. he berated the chief justice because he was responsible for upholding the affordable care act. and clearly showed that he would appoint judges who would strike it down. his decision to pick a supreme court justice nominee who believes that the president should be above the law perhaps should surprise no one. but his outsourcing of that decision to those same right-wing groups that are trying to remake the lower courts is truly unprecedented. he has become a puppet of those groups in all of his judicial nominees, and most particularly in his supreme court nominee. i know my colleagues will want to speak tonight about ryan

bounds and other related issues. but let me just say about justice, judge kavanaugh, brett kavanaugh of the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, that he has shown that he meets the trump litmus test because he has been vetted and screened by those right-wing groups. he has shown that he would automatically overturn roe v. wade and that he would in fact strike down significant protections, indeed protections for millions of americans under the affordable care act from preexisting conditions. but he also believes that a president can refuse to comply with a law if he believes it is unconstitutional. if he alone believes it is unconstitutional, even if the

law was duly passed by congress and upheld by the courts, he has written, and i quote, under the constitution, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if the, a court has held or would hold the statute unconstitutional. judge kavanaugh has also written that the president should be immune from even investigation for criminal or civil wrongdoing. under his view, a president could not be investigated or indicted, could not be held accountable under the law, would not have to respond to civil suit or a subpoena or a request to be investigated by law enforcement. that's the rule that he believes should be adopted.

and it is clear from judge kavanaugh's position on executive power that he is a staunch supporter of, in fact, an imperial presidency. he believes that a president is above the law and immune from checks and balances. this view is antithetical to our democratic principles and tradition. it is in keeping with donald trump's view of the presidency. it is out of sync with what our democracy needs now, especially with this president. president trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration of dictators like kim jong-un or vladimir putin, and his apol gists will tell you -- his apol gists will tell you to ignore judge kavanaugh's view of executive power, pretend like they don't exist. but we have a responsibility to

consider them, to take into account these extreme views on executive power. they must be a central issue in this confirmation battle. he would, in effect, welcome legislation enabling the president to fire a special counsel for any reason or no reason at all, and if we have learned anything over the last 24 hours, it is that that special counsel investigation must be protected. it must be protected against the concerted and coordinated, concentrated effort of the trump surrogates and cronies to discredit or derail it. it must be protected against efforts to impeach rod rosenstein.

it must be protected against the president's own threats, continuing to call it a witch hunt when we see more and more in indictments and conviction that it is real and significant. donald trump cannot be permitted to derail it. we will talk again about judge kavanaugh, but as to ryan bounds, the decision is for now. and because he has been rightly denied approval through the blue-slip process, because the abandonment of that process does such grave potential damage to american justice, and because ryan bounds is unfit by virtue

of many of his views and past statements to serve on the federal bench, i will oppose and vote against him. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i would like to join my distinguished colleague from connecticut in commenting on the qualifications and prospects of these two nominees that we're facing now on the senate floor. i thank him for his comments, and i'd like to take my time to bring to the attention of this body some of the concerns that i think are in the nature of

concerns that if we do this now, we will learn to rue the day that we made these mistakes. let me begin, as i did in my comments about judge kavanaugh, with a just quick overview of how our founding fathers felt about the judicial branch of government and about the jury and what it was there for. the founders were experienced politicians. they were adept at history. they had read widely. they prided themselves on the expertise that they had developed and how you design a government. and they were very conscious about doing something that was unprecedented and that they wanted very desperately to have

work right. so they put their hearts and souls into trying to get it right, this american experiment of ours. and they knew that from sad experience in the colonies, they knew that big special interests could come in and could completely dominate a legislative body, that the legislative body would be at the beck and call of big private special interests. and they had also seen governors in the colonies become corrupted by influence. and so they were very concerned that it was not enough that you separated the legislative and -- the executive branches and created some degree of rivalry between the two because that left the prospect still that the big special interests that commanded the legislature could also command the executive branch, and then where would the ordinary citizen go? where would you go for relief

when some big and powerful interest controlled those two organs of government? you'd go to the courts. that's why they made the judiciary independent. that's why they insisted and fought so hard to make sure that the institution of the jury made it over from england, made it through the colonies. it was part of our battle with england that the king had tried to interfere with our juries. we took the power of the jury and the independence of the court seriously, not just as a matter of providing justice to an individual person but as part of the architecture of our constitution, as part of the architecture of freedom that our constitution represents. and there's something that's interesting about the jury and the courts that the jury in particular that makes it a little bit different than a lot of the rest of what went on in that constitution, because clearly the founding fathers were concerned that the power of

government would be coopted by powerful interests and then evil work would be done with that power against ordinary people. and so a lot of our constitutional structure is designed to protect all of us regular americans against the power of government. but in the courts -- and specifically in the jury -- there is tea a different power -- there's a different power that was at issue. and blackstone, who was the predominant legal figure in the colonies at the time, the reference that lawyers at the revolutionary era used was blackstone's commentaries, and blackstone described how the jury within the larger context of the judicial branch, the jury was a defense for regular people

-- not against the government, interestingly -- possibly against the government -- but also and perhaps more importantly against the more wealthy and powerful citizens. it was set up so that the courts would provide equality between an ordinary american citizen who was being run over by a big, powerful, wealthy american citizen and that they'd be treated fairly. it would be the chance where you could stand up against wealth, where you could stand up against power, and even if they controlled the legislature, even if they controlled the governor, you still had your shot before that jury of your peers and in those courts. so that's the context for looking at these judges who are being put forward by a special interest apparatus of perhaps

unprecedented power in our country's history, certainly unprecedented power in our country's history since teddy roosevelt broke the back of the big trusts and the big business interests that had dominated in his era. here we have these two characters coming through. one is mr. bounds. mr. bounds has a considerable problem with himself, which is that he's fill ago seat -- filling a seat on the ninth circuit that is designated to the state of oregon and it has until this moment always been the tradition of the senate that the home state senators associated with that seat have the ability to say, no, it's part of our checks and balances. the people from that state who are likely to know him the best, the senators who are here, have the chance to say, no.

both of the oregon senators have said no, and has that mattered one wit to the trump administration? no. they have broken this tradition. regrettably, our republican colleagues are complicit in letting this happen. they are complicit in letting this happen. and it is a sad day for the senate because the blue-slip process, the process by which home state senators are allowed to say no, is also the only process that defends that this is an oregon seat in the first instance. there is no other check on the president's power to appoint. so there are a lot of reasons why bounds is disqualified, but the most compelling one to me is because the two home state senators have both said no.

-- no to this person. and things do turn about. i've been in the majority here, and i've been in the minority. i've been here with republican presidents, and i've been here with democrat presidents. things do turn about. when the day comes that we have a democratic president making his appointees and when we have democratic control so that we can confirm these appointees, republican senators are going to regret that they threw their own blue-slip rights away today on this nomination. and throwing their blue slips away doesn't just mean that they lose their vote as to the oregon senator for this seat. it means they lose their vote that defends that this needs to be an oregon judge in this seat.

there is nothing after the blue slip is gone that would prevent our colleagues -- that would allow our colleagues from texas to prevent a democratic president from appointing a new york city judge to texas seats on the circuit court of appeals. so if that starts to happen, don't come crying back to us now about this. today is your chance to stop that, to stop all of that, and to put the senate back to respect for our colleagues' judgment. a mutual and bipartisan respect for our colleagues' judgment that has been the standard of the senate for a century now. it is going today, and it is going today under what pressure? why would we want to turn to other colleagues and say, for the first time ever, your views

don't count about the senator -- about the judge from your moment -- from your home state, senator? the only haven't the power of the political pressure behind these appointees. the big special interests that are putting these nominees forward, that have precleared them through the dark process that the federalist society runs, who have pushed through for these political campaigns to support them and who are going to be telling them what to do through a mysterious, dark process of funded so-called friends of the court who are going to be there in the court all day long telling them what to do, that is the process that is breaking the blue slip, and it ought not to. it's not right on its own and it certainly isn't right to break the blue slip. the last i'll say is this character oldham who is coming in, among the leading republican

special interests are the great polluters. they got scott pruitt in. what more proof do you need that the polluters are in control than to put scott pruitt in charge of the e.p.a.? the man was a joke. and yet, and he went, confirmed by the united states senate. and now comes oldham, who has said that the entire administrative state, quote, is enraging to him. is enraging to him. it's the illegitimacy of it, he says. it's the entire existence of this edifice of administrative law that is constitutionally suspect. no, it's not. we have an entire body of law, the delegation doctrine that controls what's appropriate for congress to delegate to an administrative agency. it has been that way for decades. this is fanciful stuff, but it's

a wonderful red flag way for the big polluters saying whenever you disagree with a regulatory agency that tries to keep you cleaning up your act, i'm going to be with you. and that is what the oldham nomination is all about. it's all about telling the big polluters that we've got a friend for you on the courts now, and if there's one thing that ought not to happen in this country, it's that somebody walks up the steps of the courthouse, and before the argument is even made, they know that they're going to lose the case not from the arguments in the brief but from the identity of the party on the front page of the brief. and that is why oldham is going on the court, so that the big polluters can know that they will win their cases in front of him without him even having to read the brief. all he'll need to do is look at the cover, see that the big polluters are on the cover and know that he's there to attack the administrative state that is

making them keep the water clean, that is making them keep the air clean or that is making them keep their carbon emissions under control. that's what this is about. this is not right. it is not right that the blue slip is being torn apart today on the senate floor. it is not right that somebody who doesn't think that the e.p.a. ought to even exist is being put as a judge forward. but the connections come back to that same initial point, which is that the big special interests who like to control legislatures and who like to control executive branches would also love to control the court, because that's the place where they can still be held to account. so it is with real regret that i face this day in the senate. and i yield my remaining time. mr. merkley: mr. president, would my colleague yield for a question? mr. whitehouse: of course. mr. merkley: i really much

appreciated your laying out the basic framework under which this conversation is taking place. but just for calculator, you made -- just for clarity, you made the point that there is no law that requires a member of a circuit court to be in a particular state that is only under this tradition, an agreement among the members of this body that a judge reside in a particular state as part of a circuit court. mr. whitehouse: that is absolutely correct. that is not a law that assigns within the ninth circuit which judges will be treated as oregon judges and which judges will be treated as california judges. within rhode island, we are part of the first circuit court of appeals. there is one seat on that court that by tradition is designated to rhode island. mr. merkley: so if we lose

this blue-slip tradition for circuit courts, it would be the case that when the seat comes up that is now held in rhode island, an administration could nominate and conceiveably a majority could confirm someone who lives, say, in arizona? mr. whitehouse: it would mean that the senators from that state would have no defense against that change. it would mean that the next democratic president could appoint rhode islanders to texas. it would mean that the next republican president could appoint texans to rhode island. and neither the senators from texas nor the senators from rhode island would have any defense left against that without the honoring of the blue slip. mr. merkley: so in essence, when our colleagues across the aisle, if they vote for this confirmation, they're basically

saying they're voting to give up the essentially the understanding among this body that has ensured that they would have a voice in making sure that a member of their circuit court was residing in their state, and someone that they felt had the qualities of integrity and understanding necessary to administer justice? mr. whitehouse: they would either be giving up the one defense that they have to make sure that the seats on the court that are allocated to their state are in fact filled with judges from their state or they would be suggesting that there should be two different sets of rules that apply. that there be one blue-slip rule for a democratic president and there would be a different blue-slip rule for a republican president. i don't think that that is credible.

i think that once the blue slip is torn down, reestablishing it is virtually impossible. and i think the day will come when senators come to regret that they are trying to get a home state senator appointed from idaho or colorado or new mexico or texas and they have given up their ability to see to it that that happens, and that a lawyer from san francisco or from new york city or from florida or from anyplace else can be dropped into their circuit court seat, and they have nothing left to do about it because the one tool that they have to stop that and to enforce that prerogative is the blue slip, and it dies today. mr. merkley: mr. president, i appreciate so much my colleague from rhode island really laying out what's at stake here. why has this 101-year tradition

maintained itself, maintained itself over a period of time in which so many things have changed in our culture. our country's been transformed, but for over a century this mutual understanding that when it comes to the circuit court, it's appropriate to have members serving on that circuit who have roots in and approval and understanding related to different states that are within that circuit. that's what's held it together. because if i tear it down for one of my colleagues, i tear it down for myself. if i tear it down for their circuit, i tear it down for my circuit. that's what's held it together,

that we each want the circuits to be able to reflect individuals who have an understanding of the issues that might come up in that circuit. now there is embodied in the law a residency requirement for some positions on the circuit court. but that residency requirement isn't the same as the blue-slip requirement. could have established residencey very easily in another state. previous decisions of the court have made sure that it's possible to easily establish residency in another state. so, therefore, it's the blue slip that has maintained this balance. now we were taking a look at

some of the writings of the individual up for this particular position that so bothered and concerned me and concerned the senior senator, my colleague from oregon, senator wyden, that i shared a little bit about his stated written views on diversity, that students working to, quote, promote diversity contribute more to restricting consciousness and aggravating intolerance than many a nazi book burning. that was a direct quote. and he referred to diversity training as a pestilence that stalks us. and here i have an article that

he wrote titled "labor unions and the politics of atsland." and what is this about? this is about students who are part of a minority group on campus and whether they should be able to take up an issue. and at his campus, they did. they took up an issue about the ability of workers to organize into labor unions. and he said this. he said i would hardly suggest that no student group should be able to take up a political matter if it's of direct relevance to its reported mission. he said i wouldn't say that any group shouldn't be able to.

but, he said, if the sundry ethnic centers or clubs that derive of material benefit from those ethnic centers, they should not be able to take up an issue related to their mission. i'm paraphrasing here. when i come back to it, i'll make sure i give the exact words. in fact, here we have it. he said essentially that for the chicano or latino stanford students who tried to form a union, if they stood up for those workers, he felt it was a wrong thing for them to be able to do so. he said i would contend that no student group that is affiliated

with an ethnic center or any other department of this university has any business holding political issues central to its mission. can you imagine? he says he wouldn't, wouldn't weigh in that any group couldn't pursue issues on campus. but when it comes to the ethnic groups, it's just plain wrong, in his opinion, for them to be able to take a position on an issue. that's a pretty significant situation for somebody who's going to be a judge on a body to be able to say in his opinion, if it's an ordinary student group, they have every right to get involved. but if it's a latino or chicano group or ethnic group, they shouldn't be allowed to get involved in an issue.

how can people come before that judge and expect anything that resembles a fair hearing, here in the united states of america where we have a vision of opportunity for every single american, where we have a 1964 civil rights act which was passed long before this nominee attended college that threw out the notion that discrimination was acceptable. i'm delighted that my colleague from massachusetts has arrived to weigh in on this issue of the appropriateness of a nominee coming to the floor of the senate, when the judge of the two -- who in the judgment of the two home state senators

isn't appropriate either because of views they have carried that bring into question their ability to fairly administer the law and, therefore, bring into question the entire eupbl tegt of the court -- integrity of the court at that moment or because the individual also demonstrated a complete lack of integrity by failing to provide this information about their writings when they were asked to do so. i yield to my colleague from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator merkley for bringing us here this evening to give us this chance to talk about a supreme court nominee and to have us all here to talk about a whole range of issues, because this supreme court nominee will affect the lives of every single human being. so thank you very much, senator merkley, for doing this. mr. president, since day one, the trump administration has been plagued with chaos, corruption, and broken promises.

candidate trump promised to drain the swamp in washington, but this administration is teaming with shady, corrupt, political appointees. candidate trump promised to take care of everyone, make sure that every american was, in his words, beautifully covered. instead he's trying to rip up the affordable care act, permit insurance companies to discriminate against tens of millions of people with preexisting conditions, and knock millions more off health care coverage. candidate trump promised to raise taxes on the rich. remember that sun instead he handed out an eye-popping $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to giant corporations and the superrich.

for hardworking american families, the trump presidency has turned into a nightmare. but trump hasn't broken his promises to everyone. no, not by any stretch. for millionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations, trump has kept his promises all the way, and nowhere has that been more obvious than with our courts. equal justice under law. those are the words inscribed over the top of the supreme court, and that's what the american judicial system is supposed to be all about. a fair, neutral forum governed by the rule of law, a place where everyone can be heard, a place where individual rights are respected. a place where nobody, nobody is above the law. high aspirations, but these ideas never sat well with the wealthy and well connected. they are used to getting special deals, and the judicial system

that protects everyone, no matter their wealth or status in this country, is a challenge to their unchecked power. so for years, they have engaged in a concerted campaign to turn our courts into one more rigged game, a place that carefully protects the rich and powerful and kicks dirt in everyone else's face. billionaires and giant corporations have been working on this plan for decades. today the rich and powerful do their best to drown our elections in money and tilt our government in their favor. every day, they use their money to buy favors in d.c. every day, they deploy armies of lawyers and lobbyists to bend the laws passed by congress to their will. every day, they push this government to do just a little more for the rich and powerful and a little less for everyone

else. they are doing the same in our courts, too. since donald trump was elected, we have seen judge after judge come through the senate, some barely qualified, some with deeply offensive records, but nearly all these judges have one key quality -- a demonstrated willingness to put a thumb on the scales for those at the top at everyone else's expense. this week, we will vote on two more trump-nominated appeals court judges. if they are confirmed, they will continue to tilt the courts away from equal justice under law. but nowhere is this ever more obvious or more damaging than with the president's supreme court selections. during the presidential campaign, donald trump asked one group to draw up a list of acceptable candidates to serve on the supreme court, one group,

one very influential group, one extremist group, the federalist society, a radical right-wing group deeply committed to overturning roe v. wade. now, trump promised publicly that if he was elected president, he would select supreme court nominees exclusively from the federalist society's list. the idea of a republican president outsourcing the selection of judges has never been so nakedly public. for decades, the federalist society has been one of the leading right-wing billionaire-funded groups working to capture our courts. their agenda -- to impose its extremist agenda on the entire country, undermining critical rights like women's rights, workers' rights, voting rights, and environmental protections. the courts are at the heart of the federalist society's plan,

so the group has been laser focused on filling the federal bench with people who are precommitted to serve the interests of the rich and powerful instead of dispensing equal justice under law. by allowing them to hand-pick the justices who sit on the supreme court, trump gave the federalist society unprecedented opportunity to impose its extremist agenda on the entire country. and so what is at the top of their list? overturn roe v. wade. a top conservative explained that leonard leo, the federalist society's long-time executive vice president, was the man to get the job done. i quote -- no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn roe than the federalist society's leonard leo.

criminalize abortion, punish women. that's the federalist society's plan. donald trump has been happy to dance to their tune. during the 2016 campaign, he said yes, women should be punished if they try to get an abortion, and if he could appoint two or three justices, roe would be automatically overturned. since taking office, president trump has made it abundantly clear that he plans to fulfill his promise to select candidates exclusively from the federalist society's list. just days after his inauguration, trump nominated neil gorsuch, one of the candidates on the federalist society's list to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. judge gorsuch had a long record of twisting the law in ways that favored the interests of large corporations over women, over workers, over consumers, and over just about everyone who wasn't wealthy and well

connected. republicans were so dedicated to getting gorsuch on the court that they actually changed the senate rules to get him through the senate nomination. from his powerful perch on the supreme court, judge gorsuch has continued to make it harder for americans to find justice. in just one year on the court, he has voted to gut the ability of public sector unions to negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, for teachers, for nurses, for firefighters, for police officers, and for other public servants. he has voted to undermine workers' ability to hold their employers accountable for breaking the law. he has voted to uphold president trump's immoral muslim ban. the same powerful people who handpicked justice gorsuch know they will have another ally in brett kavanaugh, and, frankly,

it's not hard to see why. like justice gorsuch, judge kavanaugh's record shows that he will continue to tilt the scales of justice in favor of the rich and powerful and against everyone else. and don't take my word for it. take a look at his record. judge kavanaugh voted to limit the ability of women to make their own health care decisions. he opposed a ruling protecting women's access to birth control under the affordable care act. he voted to make it harder for agencies to protect public health, safety, and economic security. he ruled that the consumer financial protection bureau, the agency that has returned $12 billion directly to people who were cheated by corporate lawbreakers, he ruled it's unconstitutional, and he suggested that federal judges might substitute their own personal policy judgments for those of expert federal agencies that have been directed by

congress to enforce the law. now, here's the thing. judge kavanaugh had a lot of competition to get selected to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. after all, the federalist society had pulled together a whole list of people prescreened to overturn roe v. wade and to help out the powerful corporate interests that are really calling the tune in washington. so why pick judge kavanaugh? why him instead of someone else on the list? well, there is something special that makes judge kavanaugh a lot more attractive to president trump. judge kavanaugh believes that, while in office, a sitting president should be above the law. he has argued that sitting presidents should not face personal civil suits or criminal investigations or prosecutions while in office.

and after the spectacle broadcast live on television around the world of president trump attacking american intelligence agencies and american law enforcement officers while sucking up to vladimir putin, we should all question judge kavanaugh's willingness to protect the president no matter what. after trump's deeply embarrassing performance, republicans who actually want to stand up for the united states of america and stand up to trump, instead of hiding behind carefully worded tweets, could refuse to rubber stamp trump's supreme court nominee. republicans who believe that no one is above the law could vote no on judge kavanaugh. now, there is a lot more that makes this nominee particularly attractive to president trump. judge kavanaugh has demonstrated

incredible hostility toward efforts to rein in public corruption and to break the stranglehold of money on our political system. substituting your personal views for the will of congress is not the job of a judge, and it is certainly not conservative. stripping away rights from women, from voters, from workers, from immigrants while expanding the rights of corporations and rich people isn't fair, not neutral, and not equal. judge kavanaugh didn't make this stuff up on his own. no. judge kavanaugh is part of a movement to twist the constitution in ways that are deeply hostile to the rights of everyone but those at the top. he has been a part of that movement for the majority of his professional life, both before and after he became a judge, and now he has a record of 12 years

of judicial decisions that demonstrate his loyalty to that radical ideology. all this makes brett kavanaugh a dream candidate for the right-wing extremist federalist society, a dream candidate for right-wing extremist republicans, a dream candidate for the right-wing groups and billionaires who want to buy off our political system, a dream candidate for a sitting president whose campaign is under an act tiff ongoing f.b.i. investigation that eventually could land in the united states supreme court. a dream candidate for all of them and a nightmare for everyone else. president trump has made his choice. here's the thing. president trump is not a king. the constitution demands that the senate have a say in who gets to serve on the supreme court, and that means every

single senator has a vote. so think about what's at stake. one justice, one vote could determine whether or not women can make their own health care decisions. one justice, one vote could determine whether workers can join unions to negotiate for better pay, better working conditions, and better benefits. one justice, one vote could determine whether millions of people with preexisting conditions can still get health insurance. one justice, one vote could make decisions on voting rights, civil rights, immigration, criminal justice, consumer protection, and environmental protection. one justice, one vote could decide whether everyone or just those at the top can find justice in america. the justices who sit on the highest court in this country should not be prescreened by

extremist groups whose agenda is to tilt the scales of justice against americans who are most vulnerable. they should not work to hand our courts over to corporate giants and wealthy individuals. the justices who sit on our highest court should be unequivocally committed to one principle -- squall justice under law. judge kavanaugh's record shows that he is not the right candidate to spend a lifetime making decisions that will touch the lives of every american. every american who believes that our courts should not be another puppet of the rich and powerful should speak out, and every senator who believes in equal justice under law should say no to judge kavanaugh. mr. president, i yield the floor

to my colleague from oregon. mr.wyden:i thank my colleague from massachusetts for eloquent remarks, and i particularly want to thank my colleague from oregon for putting together this time to speak on issues so important to our state, as senator warren has noted, in issues important to our country. and i in the context of talking about ryan bounds am going to talk about how unfortunately the handling of the bounds nomination moves the senate even farther away from what i think the senate has