the federal appeals court based in new orleans. we're expecting a confirmation vote at 2 p.m. and a procedural vote on moving forward with another judicial nomination. now live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who has been the hope and joy of many generations, thank you for

giving us the power to seek you. we praise you for your promise that those who keep on seeking will find. inspire our lawmakers to seek your wisdom in order to be guided by your loving providence. give them a clearer vision of your truth, a great faith in your might, and a deeper assurance of your love. teach them to labor and not to ask for any reward except that

of knowing they are doing your will. we pray in your loving name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed and

under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, andrew semplet oldham of -- s. oldham of texas to be united states district judge of the fifth circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 2:00 p.m. will be divided in the usual forum.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this week the senate continues to confirm impressive nominees whom president trump has asked to serve our country. we've confirmed two assistant secretaries for the department of education, scott stump and james blew and we confirmed randal quarles and now we will consider nominees for the fifth circuit and ninth circuit courts of appeals. first is andrew oldham of texas,

the president's choice for the fifth circuit. mr. oldham has imposed the xiewnt in his -- community in his years of public service. mr. oldham has degrees from the university of virginia, cambridge, and harvard law. he clerked on the d.c. circuit court and on the supreme court. he carries the highest possible rating from the american bar association, unanimously well qualified. he comes highly recommended by colleagues and peers from across the spectrum. glef reasony supported -- constantly enthusiastically and without reservation. she and the nominee worked on a number of important subjects. she said that mr. oldham expressed the qualities of an

ideal judge. lisa blat argues before the supreme court. her letter describes oldham as a great listener with a brilliant legal mind and wonderful sense of humor. her conclusion, he would make a superb judge. what about mr. oldham's own words if confirmed, he explained to our colleagues, he will uphold the rights of all litigants equally and apply the law to all fairly. he understands his responsibility clearly. i look forward to confirming this nominee and i urge each of our colleagues to join me. now on another matter it has been a year and a half since these republican majorities took their seats in congress and a republican president was sworn in. in 2016, the american people made it clear that it was time to try something new. they were tired of so-called -- of the so-called recovery that

focused overwhelmingly on big, wealthy metropolitan areas. they had seen enough of tax hikes and top-down regulations that held their communities back. they turned to republicans to create a pro-growth ajen a. job creators and entrepreneurs have been able to rise together. 18 months later, the results could not be clearer. today more people say it's a good time to find a job than at almost any point since the turn of the millennium. u.s. manufacturers are more confident than ever about the future of their businesses. this is a store from yesterday's financial times. u.s. rail stales -- retail sales rise for the fifth time. it those our economy is healthy. it shows that families feel they have enough breathing room to make purchases which then of course benefits the companies and workers who produce what

they are buying. and, of course, it's especially good for the nearly 42 million americans whose jobs are supported by the retail industry. according to industry data as many as six in ten americans work in retail at some point in their career. so this continued prosperity is really significant. there's little question that tax reform is to thank for a significant portion of this progress. for one thing, our middle-class tax cuts are directly boasting family's -- boasting family incomes. families are experiencing less withholding from their paychecks thanks to tax overhaul. and they look at the business side which is letting more u.s. employers expand and hire. that means more jobs for american workers, which means more income for american families which mean more money in the cash registers of american small businesses. and the cycle goes on.

the american people and most fair observers are marveling at what this is delivering to workers an middle-class families. i'm starting to think our democratic colleagues may have forgotten what a successful economic agenda looks like. because even in the face of headline after headline and testimony after testimony from the families and job creators we represent, they try to brush off this impressive growth as nothing serious, and they advocate for repealing or undoing the republican policies that are helping to make it happen. fortunately, mr. president, republicans know full well how to cut taxes, trim back regulations and get washington out of the american people's way. it's just what we've done. it's just what we'll continue to do.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask -- are we in a quorum? we are not. mr. president, thank you. now, yesterday president trump went through a, quote, walkback. president trump's walkback performance was pathetic. it was weak, insincere and

thoroughly unconvincing. the president read a scripted clarification yesterday like he was in a hostage situation. all you had to do was look at his face. he couldn't even fully commit to it adding off the cuff that other people could also be responsible for election interference in 2016. that's hardly a walkback. and it was concerning only one particular comment. the president did not address his lavish praise for vladimir putin in helsinki. is he going to walk that back? he blamed both countries, the u.s. and russia, for the sour relations between us. is he going to walk that back? he said u.s. stupidity and foolishness, not russian aggression was the reason our relationship with russia was so bad. is he going to walk that back? he did not address his brazen attacks on the f.b.i. while on

foreign soil. is he going to walk that back? and now late last night and this morning, the president is back to celebrating his meeting with putin. he's walking back the walkback. that's what he did this morning. this is like charlottesville reducts. we all know what the president really thought. we know what he thought at charlottesville. the walkback was unconvincing and he went back to his old ways. we know what he thought at helsinki. the walkback was unconvincing and now with his tweets this morning he's back to his old ways. the only reason there was a walkback is that the president was forced by pressure from many of my republican friends here, from his allies in the media, and his own whitehouse staff. they all pressured him to give that temporary walkback. but it's clear from today's

tweets take he doesn't mean it, that he doesn't believe it, and, frankly, neither does anybody else. it's clear that he still believes president putin over the consensus of american intelligence community, and that puts americans' securitily gravely at risk. the president's reluctant, ham handed, halfhearted clarification yesterday -- clarification is in quotes -- almost entirely reversed this morning is woefully inadequate. his behavior in helsinki continues to demand a response from congress, and there are many things we can do. but later this morning if anything is true to form, the president will hold a cabinet meeting and his advisors will shower him with thanks and praise. this is what he craves and will

provide perhaps another version of what happened in helsinki. so given what happened in helsinki and given that the president's walkback was so weak , there are several things that we as a congress can do. and we should. talking the talk is not enough. walking the walk is what's so important here. and we need to act, not simply go tsk tsk, bad president and then go back to business as usual because the american policy, american security, the view of america in the eyes of the world has taken a severe

setback and it's up to us in the congress to try and undo that. so i've mentioned a whole host of actions this body can take to counter russia's malign activity, punish putin for interfering in our election, prevent him from doing it again, and ensuring the president is doing what's necessary to stand up for american interests. the senate is not powerless to take action in the wake of president trump's indefensible performance at his summit with vladimir putin. so let me reiterate and suggest some things that we should do and i believe we should do all of these. first, our republican colleagues need to join us in demanding immediate public testimony from the president's national security team, those that were in helsinki and those who would have knowledge of what happened in helsinki. we need to have an immediate public testimony from secretary

pompeo, from d.n.i. director coats, from ambassador huntsman. above all, we need the translator who was present at the one-on-one meeting with president putin to testify openly before congress. that's not usually done, but there's almost always other people in the room. you don't need the translator. but for some reason, a reason that americans and the world is wondering about, president trump wanted no one else in the room. so to have the translator come testify and tell what happened there is an imperative. it's so important. it is rare for translators to come before congress, but in this case it's warranted. a, because no one else was in the room by the president's direction and, b, because what happened there might have been so important given what happened

in public a few short hours afterwards. the translator works for the federal government, works for the taxpayers, and may be the only person who can accurately report what president trump said to president putin behind closed doors, what concessions were made to vladimir putin. we want to know. did the president make concessions that hurt our national security? what did he agree to? congress has a duty to conduct responsible oversight of the executive branch, particularly after what the president did in helsinki. the president's summit calls for oversight and having these people, particularly the translator, come testify is important. i understand secretary pompeo will appear before the foreign relations committee next week which is good, but we need to hear from others, including the

translator. i urge leader mcconnell and his leadership team to immediately request a hearing with the people i mentioned. second, our republican -- the republican leadership should place on the floor soon, asap, bipartisan legislation led by senators booker, graham, coons, tillis, to protect the special counsel from political interference. this legislation passed that of the judiciary committee with bipartisan support. it has four sponsors, two democrat, two republican. if leader mcconnell is serious about the checks and balances, if what he said in the last day or two is not just meaningless words, he would put this legislation on the floor, it will pass. alongside demanding testimony

from the national -- from the president's national security team, passing legislation to protect the special counsel is probably the most important thing this body could do to ensure that president trump's recklessness does not precipitate a constitutional crisis. third, we should ratchet up sanctions on putin and his cronies, not water them down. the sanctions this body passed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, 98-2. i salute leader mcconnell. he helped bring it to the floor even though the president didn't like it, but these sanctions have not yet been fully implemented by the trump administration. on our side, senators menendez and van hollen have some very good ideas about sanctions, and we should act on them. fourth, our republican colleagues can and should insist that the president finally

release his tax returns. we all know that the president broke decades of practice when he didn't release those returns, so damaging because his economic interests outside of the government are so large, complicated, and varied. so important because he deals with international finance in these situations. so there was no good reason why he didn't release his tax returns then. but president trump's inexplicable behavior in helsinki has many americans asking what does putin have over him that he is behaving in a way that is basically inexplicable by any rational, logical line of thinking? well, that's why his tax returns would be so important. we should pass legislation that requires the president to release his tax returns. that was important before, but

it's much more important after helsinki now. and fifth, republicans should demand with us that the president insist the 12 russians indicted for our election interference and information warfare are handed over. punitive may not do it, but -- putin may not do it, but at least we ought to show how serious we are as a country. the president ought to show how alarmed he is that this happened. the best way to do that is for our republican colleagues to join with us. they will have more influence than we will, asking him to do so. finally, we should have bipartisan legislation on election security. together in a bipartisan way, the help of my friend from tennessee, the senior member of appropriations, in the last omnibus bill, we passed $380 million for election security, and as i understand it, that money is now being sent

out to the states to help them, but we have to do more. there is bipartisan legislation. senators klobuchar and lankford, senators van hollen and rubio have good legislation that would help beef up our election security. we ought to move on. our country, our cyber networks, our election systems are under constant attack from adversaries like the russians. there is a bipartisan consensus we must harden our infrastructure. this legislation i mentioned from klobuchar, lankford, van hollen, rubio, there is other legislation by senators harris and wyden. i urge the republican leader to let us move on one or more of these bills. now, we should do all of these things, not just one or two, all of them.

i can't think of a logical reason not to do any of them other than fear of offending the president. but times like this call for us to do more. we have already heard some of our republican colleagues say let's move on after what the president said yesterday, but as i mentioned, his so-called walkback was not a walkback at all, and if we care about our nation's security, we will move forward. the final thing i would say to my republican colleagues is thit will be remembered in american history. it will be remembered -- it's not going away. this is a moment that will be remembered next week, next month, in november of 2018, in november of 2020, and way

beyond. the helsinki summit is now an unalterable fact in american history, a moment when unfortunately an american president humiliated his own country and himself before a foreign dictator. it was a terrible sign of weakness by this president, and it unfortunately weakened the office he holds. but it can be remembered as a moment when a bipartisan majority in congress, democrat and republican, dropping all -- all trappings of party linked arms and stood up for our country after our president refused to do so. let's hope it is. let's hope it is. one final point, mr. president, and i know my colleagues are waiting, and i appreciate their indulgence. this is on the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. i just read in a very recent interview that judge kavanaugh

was asked whether if granted the opportunity he would overturn precedent in any one case. judge kavanaugh initially declined to answer, then caused, and then said on second thought he would overturn the precedent in morrison v. olson. that's the case that upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. i make two brief points on the subject. first, judge kavanaugh's response demonstrates he is willing to answer direct questions about precedent, which precedents he agrees with and which precedents he would overturn. i hope during the hearings we won't suffer the tried and true verbal gymnastics of nominees who refuse to answer questions on existing precedent. judge kavanaugh had no qualms about that in that interview. second and more immediately, considering everything we know

about judge kavanaugh's expansive view of executive power and accountability, the fact that morrison v. olson, of all the cases in the history of the supreme court, is the first case he qo think of over-- he could think of overturning is deeply, deeply troubling. we already know he believes a president shouldn't be investigated while in office. that a president can't be indicted while in office, that a president doesn't have to follow laws that the president deems, his words, unconstitutional. clearly, judge kavanaugh's judicial philosophy incorporates an almost monarchical view of executive power and accountability, animated by a belief that our chief executive gets to play by a different set of rules. judge kavanaugh, particularly after this interview, needs to recuse himself from anything having to do with the mueller

probe. given his record and the fact that he was nominated by the subject of the investigation he could very well end up ruling on. i yield the floor and once again thank my colleagues. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. jones: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss an issue that is of great importance to my constituents in alabama and many other people across the country. that issue, mr. president, is the health of our automotive industry. unfortunately, the health of my state's automobile industry is being threatened not by unfair competition or illegal practices but by significant tariffs proposed by the president. according to the u.s. chamber of commerce, more than half a million alabama jobs are supported by global trade, meaning more than one in every four alabama jobs is tied to trade. one of the key reasons why alabama has such a robust trade posture is because of our

automotive manufacturing industry. i'm old enough to remember what it was like before auto companies came into alabama in the 1990's, starting with mercedes. at that time, mercedes came, many of alabama's manufacturing facilities were closing down, moving to other countries, but one by one, from mercedes to honda to hyundai and now toyota and mazda who are breaking ground on a new plant very soon, these automakers came to alabama and breathed new life into our state economy. today they support some 50,000 -- 57,000 alabama jobs and our auto exports topped $11 billion in 2017. that doesn't even include the new toyota mazda plant in huntsville, which is going to add another 4,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in economic development. from having no automobile industry 30 years ago, alabama

has become the third largest exporter of automobiles in this country, and in just the past 15 months, every major automobile manufacturer in alabama announced an expansion totaling 5,400 jobs and $3.3 billion in investments. this industry has just been a phenomenal success in alabama, and more importantly, for the men and women who rely on these very good-paying jobs to support their families and build better lives. that's why it's a priority for me and colleagues like my friend, senator alexander from tennessee, to keep our state's ought motive industries thriving, but recently this industry has come under attack. in may, president trump threatened a 25% tariff on imported cars, trucks, and auto parts. under the pretext that these products somehow threaten our

national security. let me be clear. while the united states faces any number of threats from adversaries on any number of fronts, foreign automobiles and auto parts are not a threat to our national security. but you know what is a threat? a 25% tax on the price of these imported goods. the president's proposed auto tariffs have the potential to inflict serious damage on a booming industry in my state and other leading auto-producing states like tennessee. we might call them tariffs, but we all know exactly what they are. it's a tax. tariffs by definition are a tax on a particular class of imports or exports. any tariff placed on a product coming into the united states is a tax that increases the cost of those goods to american consumers. when other countries place additional tariffs or new taxes

on american goods, it raises the purchase price of american products overseas and hurts our abilities to sustain competitive markets in those countries. so it's deeply troubling that the recent proposal from the president will threaten tens of thousands of jobs in alabama and increase costs for american consumers. shortly after this tariff threat was issued, senator alexander joined me in writing to secretary -- commerce secretary wilbur ross, urging him to reconsider the auto tariff tax proposal. between our two states, the ought motive sector contributes more than 200,000 jobs to our economy. a number of auto workers from our states are in town this week to tell their stories to the commerce department firsthand, and i commend them for their efforts in doing so. senator alexander and i understand the devastating blow these tariffs would represent for an industry that is -- that has literally rebuilt our respective state economies from

ground up. automakers and their suppliers can be found in every corner and in nearly every county in each of our states. we have found common calls in fighting these tariffs and protecting our constituents from the devastating impacts they will bring. there are already a few legislative solutions out there, including senator corker's solution regarding tariffs. i know senator portman is also doing a lot of good work in this space. senator alexander and i are working together to propose a solution of our even as a complimentary measure to halt these tariffs. we hope to introduce that proposal as early as next week after consulting with our ought motive manufacturers and working with our colleagues to grow bipartisan support for this legislation. i realize that folks affected by these proposed tariffs are looking for a silver bullet to stop them dead in their tracks. right now, the only silver bullet in this case is for the president to change his mind and recognize how many jobs are at

risk because of these proposed tariffs. until that happens, we're going to fight to protect what our states and our workers have earned. i want to thank my colleague senator alexander who is here today for his continued partnership in this effort, and i look forward to working with more of our colleagues to stop the urgent threat to american jobs. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you. i want to thank the senator from alabama for his remarks. i've come to the floor to discuss bipartisan legislation that he and i, as he said, plan to introduce as soon as next week to encourage the trump administration to reconsider the dangerous steps that it's taking to impose tariffs on imported automobiles and automotive parts. i use the word "dangerous" mr. president, because nothing has

done more during the last 40 years to raise family incomes in tennessee than the arrival of the auto industry. and nothing could do more damage to those family incomes than the proposed tariffs on imported automobiles and automotive parts combined with the tariffs on imported steel and aluminum that the administration has already imposed. mr. president, we've heard the senator from alabama talk about his state. in my view, tennessee is more likely to be hurt than any other state by these tariffs. let me tell you a short story to explain why we'd use such a dramatic statement. 40 years ago i walked a thousand miles across tennessee in my campaign for governor. in ruddford county outside nashville, i spent the night with the knight family. mrs. knight told me her twin

boys were bright but that she was sad because, as she put it, there are no jobs around here, and they're smart boys and they'll never get a job here, and i will never see my grandchildren. 40 years ago, mr. president, there were no auto jobs in tennessee. we were the third poor estate. our family incomes were the third lowest. our low-paying textile jobs were fleeing outside of our country. unemployment and inflation were high and prospects were bleak. then in 1980, just two years after that walk when i was the governor of tennessee, nissan from japan arrived and came to rutherford county. then general motors with saturn came to spring hill. then volkswagen came to chattanooga all with large manufacturing plants. as the american automobile industry moved to the southeastern united states, more than 900 auto parts suppliers

spread across 88 of tennessee's 95 counties. and today 136,000 tennesseans are one-third of our manufacturing workforce work in those auto plants. those auto jobs have become the main driver of family incomes which averages a little above the national average. our economy is booming. unemployment is at a record level -- and unemployment is at a record low. tennessee today produces 6.7% of all the cars and trucks produced in the united states. tennessee exported more than $5.5 billion worth of automobiles and auto parts last year. tennessee has been the top state in auto manufacturing strength for five out of the last eight years, according to business facilities. so let me get back to my little story. last year one of those bright

twins from rutherford county from the knight family where i spent the night 40 years ago, randy knight retired as the general manager of the nissan plant which is the largest and most efficient auto plant in north america. his brother works there, too. and so does one of those grandchildren that the grandmother thought she would never see. you can see why tennesseans become very worried when anything threatens the auto industry that has transformed our state. and here's why the proposed tariffs do that. tariffs, as the senator from alabama said, are taxes. tariffs are taxes on us, pure and simple. they make what we buy and sell more expensive. the laws of economics usually mean that when you make what you buy and sell more expensive, you buy and sell less of it.

if we sell fewer automobiles and automotive parts, there will be lower revenues, lower profits, fewer wage increase, and fewer jobs. since almost every one of the 900 auto parts suppliers use steel and aluminum, lower revenues and lower profits mean fewer wage increases and fewer jobs for the 136,000 tennesseans who work in the more than 900 auto plants in our state. more expensive cars mean fewer people in the united states buy those cars. and fewer people overseas buy those cars, the cars that we make. fewer people buying cars and trucks means that 136,000 tennesseans in america's number one auto state are going to have a lower standard of living than they otherwise would and lower family incomes. so why in the world would our government raise our taxes and destroy our jobs in this way?

well, the government's answer is that tariffs protect jobs in the steel and aluminum industry. well, it is true that some steel and aluminum jobs might be saved but in 2003 when president george w. bush proposed steel tariffs, the effect of them was that ten times as many people in the steel-using industry, like auto parts as they were in the steel-producing industry lost their jobs. let me say that again. ten times as many people in steel using industry lost their jobs as there were gains in the steel-producing industries. president bush dropped the idea after a year because the tariffs destroyed, as i did more jobs, including the automotive industry than it saved in the steel industry. i know something about the

aluminum industry. my dad worked at the aluminum smelting plant which closed a few years ago because electricity was so much cheaper in other parts of the world. you use electricity, lots of it to smelt aluminum. that's why those plants came to east tennessee more than a century ago. but electric prices in the united states have gradually risen over that century and they're still cheap in other parts of the world. so today there are only eight smelting plants left in the united states, seven of them still in operation. alcoa separates four and makes 46%, nearly half of all the aluminum produced in the united states. alcoa opposes the aluminum tariffs because it also separates smelting plants in canada and other countries that export aluminum to the united states. so the bottom line is this, mr.

president. the largest u.s. producer of aluminum alcoa doesn't want the aluminum tariffs. the thousands of auto plants and other plants that use aluminum don't want the aluminum tariffs so who is asking for these aluminum tariffs? a second reason justifying tariffs is that other countries may have been unfair to the united states. there may be examples of that. but when did it become a good idea to solve your own problem by shooting yourselves in both feet at once? it's hard to see how raising our taxes and destroying our jobs is a smart solution to unfair trade practices. then there is the question of whether tariffs help auto workers or not. raising taxes and prices and selling fewer cars wouldn't seem to help the american auto worker. will it cause foreign companies

to build more cars in the united states? well, that's already happening. the foreign manufacturers have been doing exactly what we asked them to do. they have moved here. they produce cars and trucks here. they export many of those cars and trucks and auto parts to other countries. today about half the cars being built in america are being built by the so-called foreign manufacturers. nissan's plant in rutherford county employs 8,000 tennesseans and is the largest and most efficient auto plant in north america. i was with president trump last year when he spoke in michigan about all the auto worker jobs leaving the midwest. well, 3.6 million of those jobs did leave the midwest since 1994, but they didn't go overseas. they moved to tennessee. and to alabama and other parts of the southeastern united states which gained 3.6 million auto jobs during the same period.

those new auto plants are in tennessee, alabama, georgia, mississippi, south carolina, kentucky, and texas. all states where the president is widely admired, states that he carried heavily in his election effort. those plants moved primarily to the southeast because our part of the country offered right-to-work laws and an environment that allowed companies to make quality cars at a lower cost and sell them competitively here in the united states and around the world. in fact, my own view is that the movement of the american auto industry to the southeast saved the american auto industry because where it was 25, 30, or 40 years ago was stuck in the midwest in an al goply with united auto workers and three big companies and they were producing big, expensive cars and the little foreign cars were coming in and eating their lunch in the marketplace. so now we have strong and

effective america auto plants in the midwestern united states and in the southeastern united states, and half of them are made by so-called foreign manufacturers. mr. president, i agree with president trump on many things. tax, judges, regulation, the economy, keystone pipeline, other things. he's helped create today's booming economy and lower unemployment. i give him credit for helping to do that. but these tariffs take us in exactly the opposite direction. these tariffs are dangerous. these tariffs are going to cost us jobs. these tariffs are going to lower our family incomes. these tariffs are going to do undo much of the good that the president and this congress have done during the last year and a half to create this booming economy. i respectfully suggest that the president reconsider his trade

policy, drop the tariffs as a tool for implementing his objectives, and find other, more effective means to persuade other countries to do for us what we do for them. i thank the president and i yield the floor. mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. this weekend in colorado we'll be celebrating the opening of our new rocky mountain veterans administration hospital, the new

rocky mountain regional v.a. medical center in aurora. i'm incredibly proud that we'll be reaching this milestone this weekend after a decade of work, a decade-plus work, years of work. and some significant hurdles, trials, tribulations along the way. i want to commend my colleague, though, for the work they did in funding this project. the rocky mountain regional v.a. medical center will be the crown jewel of the v.a. system. it wasn't easy to get here. a lot of people had to do a lot of work to make it happen, including the veterans, the leadership organizations in colorado, our colleagues across the aisle, congressman kaufman, senator bennet, the entire congressional delegation for a number of years, senator salazar, senator udall, senator allard who have all done incredible work to make this weekend a possibility. hundreds of millions of tax dollars were used at this facility. it did run over budget, certainly ran over time. but we've learned a lot from

this as a result of this facility, the army corps of engineers will now be taking over major construction projects like this. as a result of this facility, we've made changes to how designs are being made. it was a learning experience and unfortunately a costly one at that. but it doesn't change the fact that this will be a crown jewel, a crown jewel in the v.a. system. this is not the end of a project but it's the beginning of a promise to be fulfilled. a promise to our veterans, the care that they will receive, a place where they will find healing, where they will find support, where they will find a return to good health. and so to our men and women in uniform who currently serve, know that you have a place in colorado that you will find incredible care. to those who have served our country, who live in colorado and know that with great pride, we open this facility this weekend. but we have more work to do. we have work to do to make sure that it's easier to hire doctors

and fulfill the positions at the hospital that have remained open for months around the v.a. system. it takes too long to on-board medical professionals. we should cut down that time, figure out how to cut through the red tape and the bureaucracy. if you're qualified to practice medicine in a swedish hospital in denver or any number of our great facilities, why can't you just go to work at the v.a. hospital as well. so these are things that we can do to do a better job. i met with president trump's nominee to be the new v.a. send a i talked to him about the work that we have to continue to do to make sure that veterans receive the best care possible. this congress has passed legislation like the choice act, made greater reforms over the past several months to reduce wait times, wait lists, to eliminate them, to make sure we can provide that promise of care. this weekend in colorado will be a great celebration, as we open this facility. so many people put in tireless

years upon years of work, from the leadership of the state to the leadership of congress, i'm grateful that this weekend we celebrate as we open a facility that begins to fulfill a promise made a decade ago for veterans in the region. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i do come to the floor today to join my colleagues in making it clear just how high the stakes are when it comes to our nation's highest courts for our families, for our communities, for our country, and for our future. mr. president, since the day he took office, president trump has made one move after another to

turn the white house and the entire executive branch into a tool for those who have the most power, the most money, and the most influence to get even more power and more money and more influence. from our public schools to our public lands and more. it's hard to find any trump administration decision where the bottom line didn't come first. but it's not just his administration. president trump has systematically worked to roll back decades of progress through our courtrooms, from the supreme court on down which will have long lasting impact stretching far beyond his time in the white house. mr. president, i know some of my colleagues were here last night to talk about the absolutely egregious circuit court nominees who would do everything they can to whittle away at our rights and our freedoms as americans, and i want to talk about that for a bit as well. but i want to take some time first to talk about a nominee who would sit above those

circuit court nominees in our nation's supreme court and who, if confirmed, would overturn roe v. wade, eliminate protections for patients with preexisting conditions, reverse settled law and precedent, and give these extreme circuit court nominees even more room to do damage to our constitution and our laws and our freedoms and our way of life. mr. president, it's telling that president trump and his republican and special interest allies are desperately trying to make the case that judge kavanaugh isn't well outside the mainstream, far outside the bounds of reasonable and deeply opposed to what people across the country want when it comes to their rights and freedoms being protected. let -- they may try but they won't succeed because the record is clear. the facts are clear. judge kavanaugh is an extreme pick who will be devastating for

our country if he's confirmed, and we need to do everything we can to stop it. so i'm standing here right now on behalf of the families in my home state of washington and across this country to be very clear about what's at stake if president trump and his enablers continue to try it turn our judicial system into one that works for massive corporations and special interests and against regular families. mr. president, earlier today a number of my colleagues stood in this spot to sound the alarm on what's at stake for our environment and our public health. if the balance of this court swings toward president trump and extreme special interests. i want to expand on those concerns and i want to talk about just a few of many issues that judge kavanaugh would impact should he be confirmed and how awful this will be for our families and our communities and our students, for our workers, for our environment, for our elections, for our country, and more.

but before i get into some issues, again just a few of many, i want to start with two that i believe are most important and that every woman, every man, every family should be thinking very hard about: protections for patients with preexisting conditions and roe v. wade. first, president trump has broken promise after promise he made to workers and families on the campaign trail, but he has never once wavered in keeping promises he made to extreme ideological right-wing special interests. president trump said he would make taking away patient protections like those for preexisting conditions and gutting policies that have made health care more affordable for millions a top priority. now he failed to jam a bill through congress here to make those things happen, so now he's done everything he can to attack patients' health care from the oval office, and his biggest

attack yet is judge kavanaugh, an extremely conservative nominee vetted by those same right-wing special interests who president trump is so determined to keep happy. a judge who those special interests picked because they know he will help them undermine affordable care act from the supreme court bench. i believed president trump when he said he was determined to undermine patients health care in order to satisfy right-wing special interests, health care coverage especially for people with preexisting conditions is on the line with this nomination, and we cannot afford not to take this threat seriously. mr. president, that's not the only health care issue under threat. president trump said he would appoint supreme court justices vetted by these groups for their willingness to overturn roe v. wade. he said women should be punished

for having an abortion. in office he and vice president mike pence have done virtually everything they can to restrict women's access to health care and chip away at women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights. and unless women and men across the country stand up to stop him, they will succeed in putting another supreme court justice who has the ideological right-wing stamp of approval when it it comes to striking down roe. there is no sugar coating this. we are on the precipice of five men voting to overturn an historic ruling that has made women healthier, made them more equal, and more free in the united states. and we cannot let that happen. mr. president, those are two issues so many of us are focused on, and they're so important, but they're far from the only ones. another key issue i want to

briefly mention today is the rights and freedoms of our lgbtq friends and he coworkers, our neighbors, our fellow americans. we have made progress, but there are many questions and cases in this area that will come before the supreme court in the coming years, whether it's questions regarding equality under the adoption laws for all couples, the rights of a couple to buy a wedding cake, whether transgender troops can serve their country, whether someone can continue being fired simply for being lgbtq, and more. so there is a whole lot at stake. and anyone who cares about this issue or anyone who simply believes that everyone in this country should have fundamental rights and freedoms no matter who they are or who they love should join us in rejecting judge kavanaugh. mr. president, that's not all. we've known from day one that president trump would be hostile

towards our bed rom environmental laws -- bedrock environmental laws and he was eager to do the bidding of the coal and oil and gas industries, that his slogan of putting america first actually meant the u.s. would be dead last in the fight against climate change and that trump's economic agenda has more to do with rolling back rules that help keep our kids safe from toxic pollutants or protecting our drinking water or preventing health problems for senior citizens. you know, the ones those special interest groups try to call just, quote, pefbgy regulations -- pesky regulations and what the rest of us -- moms and grandmothers and ordinary people call commonsense protections. but, mr. president, apparently it's not enough just to attack our environment from this administration. if you really want to shape our nation's environmental laws for generations to come, you put someone on the supreme court for life who will consistently side with the massive corporation

special interests that put profits ahead of health and well-being of our families. and, boy, did those c.e.o.'s and special interests hit the jackpot with president trump's nominee. you don't have to spend long looking at judge kavanaugh's record to see that should he be seated, nearly five decades of environmental protection are at risk, including the protections enshrined in the clean air act, which has significantly cut the smog and smoot and chemicals that choked communities across the country prior to 1970 and prevented hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and cases of heart disease in the years since. also at risk, the clean air act, which if erased, would take us back to the bad old days before commonsense protections like when the cuyahoga river was so polluted it caught fire, when shellfish beds were closed in

puget sound, nearly decimated by pollutants, or when an estimated 20 million gallons of sewage effluent flowed into lake washington every single day. mr. president, i could go on and on about the strides our country has made to keep our families safe, but the bottom line is that because of our landmark environmental laws like the clean air act and the clean water act, our rivers are cleaner, our air is easier to breathe, and families are better protected than ever before. and though we have a lot of work yet to do, it would be a grave mistake to go backwards. and that's just what so many people fear would happen with judge kavanaugh on the bench, given his past rulings and given the test that president trump applied and his commitment to only nominate someone screened and approved by the extreme right, especially his stance that could take decisions away from our nation's scientists and

nonpartisan professionals and put those decisions into the hands of special interests, which, mr. president, takes me to another issue i want to run through briefly. making sure our elections in this country are free and accessible and that corporations don't have a louder voice in the process than ordinary voters. these are issues where our courts have failed to serve us well in recent years. but by confirming judge kavanaugh, we would be cementing this awful pattern in for a generation and making necessary forums so much more difficult. judge kavanaugh will continue his habit of ruling to make it harder and harder for citizens to vote and have a voice in this democracy. we know this. we saw how he ruled in favor of stricter voter i.d. laws, ones were the intention to make it

harder for americans to vote is clear and absolutely the wrong way to go. we cannot have a supreme court that continues to allow voter suppression. so i would ask my colleagues if you believe that voting in our country should be open to all and that people shouldn't have less access to the voting booth because of where they live or the color of their skin, join me in rejecting this nominee and demanding someone who will protect our elections and our democracy. and if you believe that citizens united was an awful decision that perverted the first amendment and put shameful amounts of power into the hands of the megarich and the biggest corporations, join me in rejecting this nominee and demanding someone who will put our ordinary voters' voice first. if we can't stem the flow of dark unaccountable money in politics and reverse the tide of the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations being

allowed to have the loudest voice in our elections, we're going to keep running into massive challenges as a nation. but but without a supreme court willing to do that, without rejecting judge kavanaugh and demanding someone else, we can't do that. and, mr. president, giving the most powerful among us an advantage in our elections is not the only way judge kavanaugh is working for those at the top. and i want to briefly discuss another. last month's janus decision made it clear that workers and their unions need a fair voice on the supreme court. unfortunately, judge kavanaugh has a long record of weakening worker protections, undermining union rights, and making it easier for corporations and special interests to tilt the scales of justice in their favor. so i would urge my colleagues who claim to care about the rights and economic security of working families, join me in

rejecting this nomination and put the power back into the hands of working families and the middle class. mr. president -- and this point is especially potent given the disgrace we witnessed in helsinki -- every american should be deeply concerned about president trump putting someone on the supreme court who is prepared to protect him from legal attack and do his bidding. and as we all watch, many of us in horror and dismay as president trump continues to do everything in his power to try and discredit the mueller investigation, we cannot forget for a moment that his supreme court nominee suggested in a 2009 law review article that a sitting president should not be subjected to criminal investigation or civil or criminal litigation. mr. president, does anyone think for one second this isn't

something president trump was looking for? is there anyone who has seen how president trump has acted, listened to what he said, who thinks that he's not thinking about what happens if somebody related to this investigation goes to the supreme court? mr. president, president trump controls the white house. his republicans control both houses of congress. and the last thing we need -- the last thing any american who truly cares about our country should want -- is to place the last remaining branch, the final branch intended to be independent, to put our constitution first into the hands of a trump lackey. that would be all of. it -- that would be awful. it would eliminate even the pretense of checks and balances. if judge kavanaugh is confirmed with his record and given what we know about president trump, that is exactly what would happen. so if you believe we should be taking the russian election

interference into u.s. elections seriously, join me in demanding someone who would be truly independent and place an appropriate check on executive power. if you believe a president is not above the law, join me in rejecting this nominee and demanding someone who will take our constitution and our judicial independence seriously. and if you believe that executive power is not unilateral and that real checks and balances are required, join me in rejecting this nominee and demanding someone who will clearly and unequivocally make sure that continues to be a reality. and finally, i want to highlight judge kavanaugh's troubling record on commonsense gun safety. this is an issue that certainly hit close to home for far too many people in recent years. churches, schools, concerts -- it seems like no place is immune

to the rampant gun violence happening in this country, which is why millions of americans have taken to the streets in recent months to demand action. and yet, at the same time, judge kavanaugh has taken a far more expansive interpretation of the second amendment and has vigorously argued that assault weapon bans are unconstitutional. his position is far more extreme than even the late justice scalia. it is no wonder that the n.r.a. immediately applauded judge kavanaugh's nomination and has pledged now to spend untold amounts to seal the deal on his confirmation. those are just a few issues weighing on so many people's minds right now. i could go on about what's at stake as president trump turns his white house and potentially now the judicial system into one that favors the powerful few. and i'd like to close by saying that there are a few things i take as seriously as a senator than my duty to consider and

vote on a supreme court nominee. and in my time in the senate, i've had the opportunity to consider nominees from democrats and nominees from republicans. i have voted for some of them. i have voted against some of them. each on their merits and each based on how i think they would serve. mr. president, this time is different. we know exactly where president trump's supreme court nominee will fall on the specific issues, no matter what vague answers judge kavanaugh chooses to deliver through this process. why do we know this? because president trump told us, openly, publicly, repeatedly. the president laid out specific tests and promised to only pick nominees from a prescreened list of people who would absolutely meet them. nobody should be fooled. judge kavanaugh is a rubber stamp. he will stand with special interests over families, and he will take our country in the wrong direction. so i urge my colleagues, stand with me in rejecting judge

kavanaugh's nomination and join me in calling on president trump to send us someone who would stand with women, with our workers, with our families, and who would truly commit to respecting settled law and the rights and freedoms we all hold dear and the long-standing protections that help keep our families safe and healthy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i rise to speak out on the nomination of ryan bounds. i will be voting against his confirmation and i ask all of thigh colleagues to do the same. my reason for this is not just the fact that in expressing his disdain for multicultural values in a series of college writings, he compared efforts to build tolerance and promote diversity

to nazi book burning. it is not just the fact that he advocated against policies designed to make lgbtq students welcome and crack down on campus rapists. it's not just the fact that when a bipartisan judicial selection committee asked him to disclose past controversies he deliberately misled the committee and said there was nothing to worry about. now that his controversial writings have come to light, he refuses to retract or show remorse for his statements. instead, he brushes them off as overbroad and overheated. ryan bounds' writings show he does not believe in a tolerant and diverse america where women and people of color are treated with equal respect. in my eyes, that alone disqualifies him from sitting on the federal bench. but bounds has not received the blue-slip approval of either senator from his home state of the oregon. no judge in modern history has ever been confirmed without a

blue slip from either home state senator. and so a vote to confirm him is a direct attack on the senate's constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. the blue-slip process is a critical function of the legislative branch. it gives every senator a chance to have a say in the federal judges who serve in their home state. the nominee to the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit will have a lifetime tenure. if confirmed, ryan bounds will have influence over our legal system for the rest of his life. don't the american people and their elected officials deserve a say in whether he should be allowed to fill that seat? this debate is not just about one unqualified judge and his racist ideas. it's about the duty of the legislative branch to serve as a check and balance on the president. over the course of the trump administration so far, we've seen an unprecedented attempt to undermine the blue-slip process

and pack the courts with judges favored by corporations and special interests. i urge my colleagues to take a stand against president trump's attacks on our legal system. protect the integrity of the blue-slip process and vote against ryan bounds' nominations. the power and independence of the legislature is at stake. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i think last week or the week before you were presiding when i did a speech that i promised i'm going to do every week that we're in session until justice is served in turkey. it's a speech about this man. his name is pastor andrew brunson. he was arrested in turkey in october of 2016. if you want to sum up his crime, it's for being a missionary.

he was -- he's been in turkey for about 20 years, has served the community well, has provided aid and comfort to syrian refugees, has provided a place for people in the turkish country who want to come into a christian church to do just that. he's got a small church in ishmir. can only seat 100 people in it. i should say he is from the black mountain area of north carolina, part of the same church that reverend billy graham was a part of. he went to turkey to pursue his passion and serving christ through missionary work. but in 2016, after the coup attempt, president erdogan implemented emergency powers and swept up thousands of people and put them in prison. pastor brunson was in prison for almost 19 months without charges, in a turkish prison, about 17 months in a cell that

was designed for eight prisoners that had 21 people in it. i was in turkey about four months ago when i first met pastor brunson personally to visit him in prison, to let him know that that as long as -- to let him know as long as i am in the u.s. senate, i am going to work hard for his release. i sat in the a turkish courtroom i told pastor brunson that i would be back and i will continue to be back until justice is served. now, i don't want to get into too many of the details, so i will tell you he was in a courtroom today for another five hours. if it was -- badr any resystem -- beared any resembles to the time i was in a courtroom, it goes something like this -- the defense gets to say nothing.

they don't get to introduce witnesses to testify on his behalf. you have many people testifying against him. things like a daughter posting her -- a meal that she had on a social media application that the turkish authorities believe links her to terror because they believe it is a meal that certain terrorist organizations like. it also happens to be a meal that a lot of people in the middle east like. but that was a charge that suggested he was involved in a coup attempt or conspiring with terrorists. having a light on in a church. by the way in a room that doesn't have a window that was supposedly observed by one of these secret witnesses who are in prison saying, well, clearly if there was a light on in this church, nothing good could have happened because it was in the middle of the night. maybe somebody just left a light switch on. i'm still trying to figure out how they actually saw it because i've been in that room and there is not a single window. there is no way you could have seen it from the outside.

that's the type of charges that have been used to keep pastor brunson in prison since october of 2016. today he was back in, as i said earlier, in a hearing, in a turkish courtroom, for five years. and at the end of the five-hour hearing, he was told that he is going to continue to be in prison until they have another hearing in october. and that hearing is scheduled for about four days short of two years that he's spent time in a turkish prison. he's been in prison for 649 days. he is in as good a spirits as you could imagine for somebody that's going on the trauma of being imprisoned, i think, unlawfully and unfairly. and his wife maureen is in turkey. she is afraid to leave because she is afraid if she leaves, turkey will not allow her to come back into the country. they have been separated from their children for three years because they are afraid to have them come into the one and not be able to leave. but i am asking the members of

congress to join with me to apply pressure to turkey to have justice done and justice is releasing pastor brunson and letting him come back home. we have provisions in the ndaa that send a very clear message to turkey that we're serious about this. i have my own concerns about turkey because they seem to be drifting away as a nato ally and a partner and more towards a position that i don't quite understand. i certainly don't understand it in terms of our mutual interests as nato allies or as economic partners. but for right now, i want to focus on a man who's been in prison for 649 days. i want to focus on other people who work with the embassy that have been in prison for about that same period of time. i want to focus on a nasa scientist who happened to be visiting his family in turkey. he is a turkish american who's been in prison for two and a half years. we need to educate the american people on a turkey that bears no

resemblance today to what it did just five or six years ago. i want to have a positive working relationship with turkey. i want increased economic ties. i want increased military ties. but when you illegally imprison american citizens, no matter how important that strategic relationship is, at some point we have to question whether or not we can go further. and in the meantime, if any of you are planning on going to turkey, i'd think twice. make sure that you don't take a picture with somebody that maybe turkish officials think is involved in the coup because that could sweep you up in it. make sure apparently that you don't eat a meal that certain other segments of turkish society like because that may make you a coup con conspirator. i hope that we solve this problem, but i'll tell you, there are very few things that would ever take me away from coming to this floor and going into committee meetings and

doing everything i can to put pressure on turkey until pastor andrew brunson is back in this country safe and sound with his family. and then i'll continue to work on all the other people who are being unfairly and unjustly held in turkish prisons. we need to have justice for pastor brunson. we need turkey to be the ally that we want them to be. and we need president erdogan to show the leadership and the compassion to bring pastor brunson home. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester:. i rise to talk about tariffs and their impacts on montana family farmers and businesses. mr. tester: in montana, we have more than 27,000 family farms and ranches. folks who farm and ranch these lands are descendants of homesteaders and pioneers,

including myself. they are also young producers who may be preparing for their first harvest. might i add that we don't have enough young producers in our state. the population of farmers are getting far too old. but these folks work seven days a week, long hours to raise the food that feeds our families across this world, and they power our rural economies in this country. farmers and ranchers are small-business operates and owners who are always on tight margins, and they're always looking to make sure that they can make the books balance by being on the positive side of the ledger. why? so that they can keep their farms and ranches viable to be able to have the next generation take over their operation.

just like any other business, a local bar or hardware store, you need to be able to make a profit to stay in business. and with that, producers need to make sure they have predictability, predictability in input costs -- talk about fertilizers, fuel and seeds -- and predict a*bgt -- predictability in markets, the places where we sell our grains, which has always been a challenge and which has become more of a challenge over the past six months. when farmers plant a crop, they need to know that there is a market for that crop, because if there's not, it can put them in a world of hurt financially. unfortunately in montana, we are preparing to harvest wheat

crops, pulse crops will be soon to come, oilseeds will be soon to come. and the fact is there is no certainty in any of those crops right now. why? because our farmers and our ranchers are being used as a pawn in a trade war that i can guarantee you not one of them asked for. this trade war is eliminating access to foreign markets, foreign markets that have taken generations to develop, and putting family farmer, ranch operations in a financial pinch, such a severe financial pinch that we haven't seen anything like it since the 1980's when we saw mass exodus off the land due to bad ag prices. the retaliatory prices against farmers and ranchers is harming montana's number one industry,

agriculture. montana's game producers produce about $2 billion worth of wheat and barley and oilseeds and pulse crops every year. since the middle of june the price of number one dark northern spring wheat in southeastern montana fell more than 60 cents a bushel, that's more than 10%. the same can be said throughout the state of montana. to put that in perspective, think what would happen in your business if your prices were reduced by 10% right off the top. it would put you in a world of financial hurt, and that is where montana's farms and ranches are today. and if prices continue to plummet, families, some of these families that have been on the land for over 100 years will be forced to make some very difficult decisions in the next six or eight months. these tariffs are eliminating

producers' access to foreign markets, markets that are in asia and europe, markets in canada and mexico. in montana, we sell our grains and our beef to these countries and others -- china, japan, south korea, canada, mexico, pacific rim countries, european union countries. these exports just didn't pop up overnight. they came to fruition after years of hard work and good faith and trust and negotiations, negotiations and trust that is being thrown out the window with these tariff fights. in some cases, japan, for example, it has taken multiple generations to establish these export markets. if we lose them, it will take many generations to get them back.

countries like argentina and russia, they're circling the markets like sharks, wanting to strike the minute we lose a grip on them to fill those voids. take, for instance, mexico. mexico is the largest importer of montana barley in the world, and for years mexico bought montana's barley to be able to make beers like corona and others. these tariffs have put those markets at risk, to the point where one mexican barley buyer told one of the folks from the barley association in montana, i don't know that we can depend on america to supply our barley anymore because these tariffs put our markets at risk. as a result, mexico, in the area of wheat, which is a huge importer of american wheat, just this last spring turned towards

argentina for their wheat. the first time ever. they signed a contract for argentinian wheat to take the place of the wheat that this country, montana a part of, was not supplying them. so the real question is, how long is this going to have to go on? we're faced with enough uncertainties in production agriculture. weather and drought and hail and bugs and disease, and the list goes on. unfortunately this is a manmade problem. i get it, i think the president is right when he talks about holding china accountable. you know, they've stolen a lot of our intellectual property. they manipulate their currency. but to put on tariffs when retaliation comes on ag products is not the right direction to

go. you can get their attention by other ways. and i would also say that these tariffs aren't just felt by farmers and ranchers. they're felt by other businesses too. builders, for example, their costs are going up. in 2016, the voters of missoula, montana approved $30 million bond to build a new city library. in 2016. started that project, but these tariffs on steel sent material costs soaring, and now just the cost of rebar has increased by $100,000 alone for this project. the library officials have told me that as a direct result of these tariffs, they're preparing that the need to go out and raise another $500,000 to finish this project. the people have to pay that price, the people of our state pay that price. in brewing, one of montana's

fastest growing industries, microbreweries, a real success story, adds value to grain in our state, they're being hit hard by it, tariffs on aluminum. as thee emerging -- as these emerging businesses -- and they are emerging businesses, they have no other option but to pass that cost on to their patrons. we're paying on the tariffs coming in and we're paying on the tariffs being put on our products going out. in agribusiness, for example, everything that's made of steel is going up and going up significantly, from cattle guards, for fencing, for metal and storage buildings and steel bins, anything made out of steel is going up, and significantly. and manufacturers who have been on the rebound since the 2008 crisis now have a hard time bidding on contracts, on

materials, and less of their money is going into their pockets, if there's any left at all because of these tariffs. every sector of our economy is feeling the pinch of this escalating trade war. now look, fair trade is really important, and it is really important. getting manufacturing back to this country is really important. but it doesn't appear that we're doing those things. instead we're putting our existing businesses, whether it's in production agriculture or construction or manufacturing, at risk with this trade war. we need open markets. those open markets need to go both directions. but we shouldn'ting driving people into -- shouldn't be driving people into bankruptcy in the meantime, and that's what's happening. so i ask what is the ending? because if this continues, i had an ag banker tell me that family farms and ranchers have about 18 months before they have to start

liquidizing. that is the reality we're facing. that's not very long. and that is the reason why this body needs to understand that we need to send strong messages to the administration that they can't use farms and ranches and small businesses as a bargaining chip. their livelihoods are on the line. earlier this month i hosted a roundtable discussion on tariffs. i was able to meet with montanans eyeball to eyeball. i heard their concerns. this is not a political issue. these tariffs aren't targeted towards democrats or republicans but in fact they're targeted at everyone. ag producers, i would tell you at this moment in time are probably carrying the majority of the load, and it needs to stop before the damage is irreversible. my grandparents homesteaded the land that we farm, they lived through the 1930's. and my folks who took the land, took the farm over in the early

1940's lived through a lot of hard times themselves. my wife and i took the farm over in the late 19 # -- 1970's and we saw what happened in the 1980's and we've seen what happens in agriculture where so many of the folks can't make it on the farm anymore and have to have jobs off the farm in order to make the books balance. these tariffs are making things harder. we've been down difficult paths in this country before. i don't believe we can afford another punch in rural america. i will continue to fight for and defend the folks who put food on our table. but their bottom lines are being severely, severely impacted by this trade war. now look, the legislation we passed last week is a start. and the senate version of the farm bill provides a safety net, but i'm here to tell you that if things continue to go south for

our markets, we're going to be faced with a bill to dump a bunch of money into production agriculture to keep these folks afloat. why? because of tariffs that are being put on ag products, and it doesn't have to be this way. we are an equal branch of government. i believe that both republicans and democrats can work on this issue in a commonsense way, especially in this body. but the administration needs to understand if they keep continuing down this road of who can put the most tariffs on the products, we're going to have a hard time keeping our businesses afloat, particularly our family farms and ranches in this country. that will not help with food security for our country and the long-term impacts of that, the long-term negative impacts of

that is unacceptable. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it's been a little more than a week since president trump announced his nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to fill the vacancy on the supreme court left by the impending retirement of justice anthony kennedy. in that short period of time, we've seen some of our friends across the aisle run through an almost impressive set of rhetorical calls nettics in an attempt to