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 tank judge kavanaugh's confirmation before

it even had a chance to begin. he will overturn this case or this law they claim. he won't be a check on the president, they've tried to say. they've even suggested that he charged too much for baseball season tickets on his credit card. horror of horrors. multiple fact checkers have debunked each of these claims so they have moved on. more recently we've heard from some of our democrat colleagues that they want to view every single piece of paper, every e-mail, every memo, every document that passed across brett kavanaugh's desk at any point in his career. now, reviewing relevant and important documents is a perfectly normal part of confirming a judicial nominee. but using that as an excuse to

delay, foot drag, and obstruct is not acceptable. we know that the effort to get every memo from the bush white house during the time he served as staff secretary there is really laughable and is only a fishing expedition designed to delay his confirmation until after the supreme court begins its work the first monday in october. for example, as staff secretary, he would have had the responsibility to basically manage the paper flow across the president's desk. now, these aren't just documents that he himself has generated. in fact, i suspect that the overwhelming majority of them he would have nothing to do with creating. he wouldn't be the author. he wouldn't be making policy recommendations. he would basically be navigating

all of the documents that go across the president's desk to make sure they've been reviewed by the appropriate person and they'd been checked for accuracy. so the idea that every single piece of paper that went across president george w. bush's desk should somehow be relevant and we should delay the confirmation until we've all had a chance to read it is ridiculous. is what president bush had for dinner 14 years ago relevant to judge kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the supreme court? well, obviously not. just as the committee quickly processed justice kagan in 2010 who spent many years in the clinton white house, i'm confident we can expeditiously and efficiently review justice kavanaugh's -- judge kavanaugh's background and rel shan't

materials so we -- relevant materials so we can make sure the vote on his confirmation occurs before the supreme court reconvenes in october. under chairman grassley's leadership, the judiciary committee will work to produce as many documents as are relevant and possible so that every senator can do their due diligence. that's an important part of our constitutional responsibility, to provide as the constitution itself says advice and consent. the most important thing to remember is that unlike the kagan nomination, we have 12 years of service on the bench by judge kavanaugh. he served on the d.c. circuit court of appeals in what has often been called the second most important court in the nation because it's located in the district of columbia, most of the major cases involving huge policy disputes confronting the federal government have made their way through his court.

and he's written opinions, majority opinions, dissenting opinions. all of those have been reviewed by the supreme court of the united states. and that, i submit, would be the best evidence of what kind of justice he would be on the supreme court, what kind of judge has he been on the d.c. circuit? that's the best evidence. and we shouldn't indulge requests for these fishing expeditions and paper chases that will lead to nothing other than delay. it's important that the vetting process be deliberative and thorough and it will be. but the volume of documents requested shouldn't be just a pretext to draw this out for political purposes. here's an important factoid, madam president. nearly half of the democratic caucus has already said they will vote no on judge kavanaugh's confirmation to the united states supreme court. are they going to be requesting documents? are they going to be saying,

well, i want to look at everything that came across his desk when they've already announced their public opposition? five of them announced their opposition before judge kavanaugh was even named. in other words, anybody that's nominated by this president they would oppose. much as we saw an attempt to filibuster the nomination of neil gorsuch to the supreme court, which resulted in the change of the precedent, lowering the number of votes to close off debate from 60% to -- or 60 votes to 51 votes. because we realized that with someone across the aisle so determined to vote against any nominee of this president no matter how qualified, there was no way we could confirm a well qualified candidate. so we changed that. well, both justices sotomayor

and gorsuch were confirmed just 66 days after they were nominated. in the case of judge kavanaugh, if that same timetable held up, we would be voting on his confirmation about september 13, well in advance of the october deadline when the court reconvenes. we'll have plenty of time to thoroughly vet this nominee in a similar time frame which is consistent with the confirmation process for both republican and democrat presidents. i had the good fortune to sit down with judge kavanaugh last week and to renew my acquaintance with him that first occurred in 2000 which as i've recounted on the floor when i was attorney general of texas, i had the privilege of arguing a case in front of the united states supreme court. and as one of the best qualified appellate lawyers in the country, having clerked on the supreme court as well, he was one of the lawyers that helped me get ready for that oral

argument. so i had a chance to not only get to know him in 2000 but to follow his career on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. and he has consistently impressed me with his thoughtfulness, his deliberativeness, his outstanding legal and academic credentials and of course his experience on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he was candid and open, professional and impressive. so i hope all of our colleagues will meet with judge kavanaugh to see for themselves. i've been told that already they've been making -- he's been making some calls at some democratic senators' offices and they refuse to see him at all. this is simply an accomplished jurist who will fairly and faithfully apply the law as written and adhere to the text of the constitution, as judges are obligated to do. and leave the policymaking and

the politics to the congress and the executive branch. so i look forward to continuing our vetting process and voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this fall well in advance of the october term of the supreme court. madam president, on a separate note, this afternoon we'll vote to confirm another accomplished legal mind, andy oldham to the federal court of appeals for the fifth circuit which includes texas. andy will join two other judges that we've already confirmed to the fifth circuit earlier this year, don willett, a former member of the texas supreme court and jim hoe, my former chief counsel and somebody with impeccable legal credentials who are now already on the fifth circuit and i'm delighted that andy oldham will be joining them. as we like to say in texas, andy wasn't born there but he got there as fast as he could. he grew up in richmond,

virginia, where his parents instilled in him a sense of hard work. his father put himself through college and his mother was one of the first women to attend the university of virginia. following their example, andy attended the university of virginia and was awarded the prestigious title of the jefferson scholar. while he was at u.v.a., he helped found an advocacy group to prevent sexual assault. his group was particularly focused on educating young men on their responsibilities when it comes to sexual violence. from there he attended the university of cambridge as a truman scholar, graduated with first class honors and then went to law school at harvard. very impressive academic credentials. during law school, he helped represent a death row inmate in the habeas corpus petition and won a temporary stay of execution in the united states

supreme court. based on andy's hard work, then-governor of virginia who is now -- who is now a member of the senate commuted the defendant's sentence to life without parole based upon andy's legal representation. after law school he went to clerk for judge sintel on the d.c. court of appeals which i spoke about in connection with brett kavanaugh where he served -- and then he served as a attorney to the department of justice's office of legal counsel. that's really the lawyers for the lawyers. the lawyers for the lawyers at department of justice, the office of legal counsel, who issue authoritative guidance for the department of justice and then, of course, he seived as a law -- served as a law clerk for justice alito on the supreme court. following a period of private practice, the state of texas came calling and andy became a deputy solicitor general in the office of the texas attorney

general. then greg abbott, who he later followed to the governor's office where he now serves as governor abbott's general counsel. on behalf of the state of texas, andy's argued two cases before the united states supreme court and filled -- filed countless briefs in support of the state. because of his background and experience, andy has earned bipartisan support receiving recommendations from the general counsel to the obama foundation as well as the texas attorney general's office. and his confirmation hearing before the judiciary committee, andy spoke about his transition from a role as an advocate to that of a jurist. he explained how he views the role of a judge, a jurist is fundamentally different as it is. he went on to say the oath of a jurist is simply to administer justice impartially and to do equal right by rich and poor and to discharge justice in a fair

and equal manner. this is exactly the type of judge we should want serving on our courts, someone who is impartial, not someone who will push for a particular ideology or political agenda on the bench. and i believe andy will follow this philosophy of impartially and fairly administering the law. andy spent all of three years of his life in public service, and he's advocated on behalf of texans for many years. so i'm confident he'll continue to serve them and the rest of the country well, and i look forward to voting for his nomination this afternoon. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise today to discuss the confirmation process for judge brett kavanaugh. by any honest measure, president trump's nominee judge kavanaugh is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the supreme court.

when he was nominated to the d.c. circuit, he already had stellar credentials, keen intellect and impressive knowledge of the law. he was confirmed on the d.c. circuit court in 2006 following years of democratic obstruction. he has worked closely on that court for a decade. his record never ceases to impress. a nominee with -- should receive bipartisan support. over the years i have seen the deterioration of the judicial process. when justice kennedy announced his retirement, i knew democrats would again play politics with the supreme court. it's what they've done for more than three decades, and it's a matter of great concern to me. faced with an imminently qualified nominee, democrats are casting about looking for something, really anything to

stop judge kavanaugh's confirmation. because democrats want political judges, they politicize the confirmation process. this is what they did to oppose justice neil gorsuch when he was nominated. they took a few cases out of the thousands he had decided and distort what had he said. they attacked him as unfit to serve. they said he was unqualified to be a justice. but justice gorsuch had an unassailable record as a principal jurist on the federal bench. so we fought back against the misrepresentations, the caricatures and the exaggerations. the american people saw through the democratic ruse. they saw the kind of justice neil gorsuch would be, a justice who says what the law is, not what he wants it to be. a justice who respects the separation of powers, a justice

who will stand up to the executive and legislative branches when they overreach, and i believe the american people will see the same thing when they look at judge kavanaugh. the debate over judge kavanaugh's confirmation should be a debate over his qualifications. does he understand the proper role of a judge under our constitution? does he have the experience needed? will he respect the constitution and the rule of law? will hundreds -- with hundreds of opinions, judge kavanaugh has built a reputation as one of the most respected and influential judges in the entire country. his incisive reasoning has led the supreme court to adopt his position in at least 12 cases. fidelity to the constitution and to the rule of law are hallmarks of his opinions. importantly, his vast body of work shows a deep commitment to the separation of powers.

his opinions demonstrate his commitment to the principle that judges should interpret the law, not make it. judge kavanaugh should be asked questions about his rulings and his approach to the law. as a judge, he has developed a reputation for his preparation in court. i have no doubt that he can stand up under the most rigorous questioning. but what we've seen so far is a mixture -- or a mix of hyperbole. the democrats have not focused on whether he understands the role of a judge. they have not focused on how he will interpret the constitution and the law -- laws passed by congress. when it comes to what we should be asking about a nomination,

what we've seen so far is not even in the ballpark. after scouring judge kavanaugh's financial disclosure, progressives thought they struck gold with a shocking revelation that would surely turn public opinion against him. so what salacious scandal did they uncover? what damning evidence did they find that would dash all hopes of confirmation? well, you're not going to believe this, madam president, but they discovered that judge kavanaugh enjoys america's pasttime. that's right. judge kavanaugh loves baseball. who are others! honestly, i couldn't believe it either. but, wait, it gets worse. not only does judge kavanaugh love baseball, he was once a season ticket holder at national stadium. okay, but here's the real kicker. judge kavanaugh bought those

season tickets with a credit card -- a credit card of all things! i know, mr. president, i was speechless, too. i've been racking my brain all week trying to figure out how a credit-card-using baseball fan could slip through the cracks of the white house vetting process. now, of course, i'm being facetious to prove a point. we're only nine days into the confirmation process and progressive opposition is already beyond parity. of course,, this is not new. everything we've seen so far comes directly from the democrats' playbook. through every half-truth and exaggeration of the nominee. just see what sticks. when nothing sticks, double down on partisan attacks, take past statements out of context, mischaracterize his positions, and lob a hyperbolic hail marie,

if you have to. do everything you can to dehumanize the nominee, no matter miss qualifications or character. if democrats continue down this path, we're going to lose all ability to debate matters of public importance. we cannot expect that all debate will be well-reasoned, but opposition should, at the very least, be rational. it should never be hysterical. the rhetoric used to oppose judge kavanaugh crosses that line. just last week, when speaking about judge kavanaugh's impressive resume, i said you could not knock yale, harvard, or georgetown. maybe i spoke too soon. shortly after the announcement that judge kavanaugh would be the nominee, yale law school release add statement with -- released a statement with prays of judge kavanaugh from professors and administrators. one professor even noted that,

quote, politics have deeply harmed our supreme court nomination process, unquote. but she lauded judge kavanaughs a, quote, true intellectual, unquote, and, quote, incomparable mentor, unquote. and a, quote, fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of, unquote. she went on to say, quote, he is humble, collegial, and cares deeply about the federal courts, unquiet. -- unquote. the response from some yale law school students, staff, and asylum my was swift, forceful, unpromising and completely ridiculous. quote, people will die if he is confirmed, unquote, as she is yale alumni were favorrishly opposing the nomination. kavanaugh was spotted distributing food to the poor. his decision to keep his

commitment to volunteer the week he was nominated to the supreme court says more about judge kavanaugh than any letter could. this overwrought reaction sadly comes as no surprise. crying wolf is the left's trademark strategy in attempts to sabotage republican nominees. back in 1990, a group opposing then-nominee david souter warned that he was a threat to, quote, lives, health, and livelihoods of millions of women and their families, unquote. it wasn't true then. it isn't true now. i hope that the senate can raise the level of debate as we consider the nomination. in doing so, we should focus on whether judge kavanaugh is qualified. i hope my democratic colleagues can resist the temptation to politicize this nomination, as they have with others in the

past. some of what we are seeing now has me worried. we've also heard a lot from democrats about how important transparency is to the confirmation process. because of judge calf now's long -- kavanaugh's long record of public service to our nation, the executive branch hag asked to produce a large number of documents. democrats have been demanding that they be given access to these documents as quickly as possible. some of my colleagues expressed shock that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein requested that assistant united states attorneys help review these documents. the truth is that the office of legal policy at the justice department always assisted with nominations, and that office is composed mostly of career attorneys. it is not uncommon for attorneys from other offices in the

justice department to help with the review of nominations. the government attorneys at the department of justice who work on nominations are extraordinarily thorough, given the report of the large number of documents, it makes sense that to facilitate this process, the d.o.j. would seek extra help when -- extra help. when we spoke last week, judge kavanaugh said he was proud of his opinions and he hoped people would actually read them rather than just read about them. i think those who do that will be just as impressed by judge kavanaugh's work as i am. i hope senators will take the time to sit down with him. judge kavanaugh has spent more than 23 years in public service. a good man, a decent man, an honest man. judge kavanaugh is the type of person we should all hope is nominated to a seat on the united states supreme court.

and that's why i'm so pleased that president trump nominated judge kavanaugh. i intend to do everything i can to support his nomination, and i hope that all other senators will do the same. we've got to quit this mud mudslinging and mischaracterization of people's character. judge kavanaugh is one of the finest people i know. he's also one of the smartest. he is conservative, no question about that. but he's honest. and to me, that's the -- these are some of the most important keys to these judgeship positions. i hope we'll get rid of the unjustice representations against the judge. i hope that we'll start treating the senate like the great deliberative body it really is. with that, your honor, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i first ask unanimous consent that mollie patrick and wayne davis and victoria and james pain, interns if senator kennedy's office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you.

additionally, i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority as well as the minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, last week president trump was in europe. he was meeting with other nato leaders. one of the major issues he raised was the need to bolster energy security throughout nato. he specifically talked about a natural gas pipeline that the russians are building between russia and germany. it's called the nord stream two pipeline. i've been talking about this pipeline for years. president trump was absolutely right to bring up this important subject. here's how "the boston herald" put it in an editorial over the weekend. trump's testy tough talk to nato on point. absolutely on point, the president's tough talk. the president pointed out that germany relies on natural gas

for a substantial amount of its energy needs. more than half of germany's natural gas imports come from russia. with this new pipeline, russia will actually increase its -- i'm sorry -- germany will actually increase its dependence on russian gas. russia will have more of an influence on germany. germany and other countries are members of nato and the reason that they are members of nato is to protect themselves against russian aggression. so why would they want to become more dependent on russia if you're germany when you're joining nato and been a member of nato for years to protect against russian aggression. so it does seem that germany has turned around now and given russia influence over its energy security. president trump pointed out how strange it seems. i think it's -- it seems strange to other members of nato and it seems strange to people all

across the country. no one who understands the facts can say that president trump is wrong. president trump is right. his tough talk to nato was on point. even the obama administration knew t. the rest of nato knows it. even germany knows it. when one country allows another aggressive opportunistic country like russia to have that kind of influence over its security, i believe it's asking for trouble. germany seems to be betting that increasing its economic ties to the kremlin will have no effect on the political manipulations that russia wants to play on europe. i think it's a sucker's bet. energy is national security. energy security is national security. nigeria security is called the master resource for a reason. it powers our country. it powers our economies. it's a force multiplier. that's important for the united states and it's important for our allies around the world to

va that correct understanding of energy and the impact that it has globally as a geo political weapon. we've seen russia in the past use its natural gas as a geo political weapon. russia threatens other countries. it extorts money from them. it bullies them. russia can then tell their customers do what we kay or we turn off -- we say or we turn off the tap and shut off your gas. they've done it in the past. you know, it also means a lot of money going from our nato allies straight into the kremlin's pockets. that's money that they could be using instead to fund aggression in europe and other parts of the world. i mean, that's what russia wants to do with the money if they get that money from germany from the energy. they use the money against us and against our nato allies. well, this new pipeline i believe was all the desire of the russian people and specifically of vladimir putin to put our nato allies much more under russia's control.

with the new pipeline, russia is seeking to make germany and the rest of europe even more dependent, even more susceptible to this kind of russian coercion . "the wall street journal" in an editorial -- had an editorial on the subject last week. they wrote that the embarrassment for berlin and for nato is that germany is so happy to help vladimir putin execute the plan. that -- that's the embarrassment for berlin and the embarrassment for nato. they said usually hostages need to be taken instead of volunteering. but that's what germany is doing right now, volunteering to be a hostage of russia. that's exactly right. europe needs new energy, new energy security and a new energy source. they need diversity. that's what the european union needs, diversity in both the types of energy, that's what our nato allies need, diversity in the types of energy they use and where they get their energy from. that's how countries ensure that their own long-term economic

health and independent is -- independence is sound. russia has a right to compete in the world market for energy. the trouble starts when russia gets so much of the market in some of these european countries that they are becoming a monopoly in terms of the way they act. russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to europe and across europe, nearly 40% of the natural gas imports come from russia. so russia has incredible control. in some countries it's virtually a hundred percent. countries like germany should be reducing the amount of natural gas they buy from russia, not increasing it. but that's what this pipeline, this nord stream pipeline between russia and germany do. it increases the amount of natural gas that germany will be buying from russia. germany should absolutely reject the nord stream pipeline as part of their reduction on the dependence of russia. that would help strength the influence and the threat that russia continuallyism poses to

our nato allies. it would help our other allies in the region because right now a lot of russian gas travels through pipelines that cross ukraine and other countries into central europe. these countries get a lot of their energy through these pipelines as well. russia hanes vaded parts of eastern ukraine. russia has taken over crimea. if russia has another new pipeline to help export its natural gas, it can just shut off the revenue from four countries like -- poor countries like ukraine. it can shut off their energy completely. one of the things that president trump has done that i think has been helpful and i have been calling for during the obama administration is providing lethal weapons to ukraine to deal with the incursions coming from russia to eastern ukraine. vladimir putin actually cut off natural gas supplies to ukraine in 2006 and in 2009 and in 2014. he invaded ukraine.

he annexed crimea, in part, to cut off access to the natural gas and oil resources. this pattern that vladimir putin has of using energy as a weapon, and the best defense against this weapon is for these countries in europe to have the kind of energy diversity and energy security that i've recommended. so in march i wrote a letter to the treasury and state departments encouraging the trump administration to look at ways to stop the construction of the nord stream 2 pipeline. that's what we'll really need to do, stop the construction of the pipeline. it was a bipartisan effort, 39 senators, both parties, signed on to the letter to express our concerns to president trump about what was happening between russia and germany. so today i take the next concrete step and introduce legislation to do four very important things. first, the legislation directs our representatives in nato to work to achieve energy security for our partners throughout

europe and eurasia. second, it calls for a comprehensive strategy that involves increasing american energy exports to these countries that are being held hostage by russia. third, it requires the energy stoke speed up approvals -- to speed up approvals of natural gas exports to our allies, other countries. and finally, it authorizes mandatory u.s. sanctions, sanctions on the development of russian energy pipelines like nord stream 2. it is in the natural security interest of our country to help our allies reduce their dependence on russian energy. now, where those countries don't see it for themselves, we need to show them how important it is for their own security. our nato alliance is strong a robust energy security strategy will make it even stronger. vladimir putin -- when vladimir putin looks at natural gas, he doesn't think natural gas; he

thinks politics, he thinks money, and he thinks power. because that's how he equates the energy that he supplies to these countries, that they have become so dependent on. money, power, and politics. so germany and other countries in nato should be doing all they are to diversify their sources of energy so they can help reduce the threat that russia poses. the united states should do all we can by exporting our abundant natural gas to our allies as quickly as possible. we have more than enough natural gas to meet our own needs and to export to our friends around the world. we can boost the security of our nato allies and our friends around the world and we should be doing it. we can do it through a peaceful process, a peaceful means without spending tax dollars while at the same time growing our american economy with the production of american energy. you know, president trump when he came to office said it's no

longer about energy security, energy independence; it's about energy dominance and what we have been blessed were in this country and the amount of energy that we have and the resources that we have, we have an opportunity and i believe an obligation to use that energy wisely, productively. vladimir putin thinks about energy as money and as power and as politics, and i think that what we need to do with the resources that we have, as i'm introducing in this legislation today, is a very commonsense approach. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. madam president, last week president trump nominated judge brett calf now to serve on the united states -- kavanaugh to serve on the united states supreme court. people have begun looking over his extensive record and he's been getting rave reviews around the country. let's look amount a few of the headlines that we've seen across the country. this is "the new york times," july 10, a conservative stalwart wins prays for his intellect and civility. "the new york times." it is astonishing. "the wall street journal" said that trump's nominee will be an intellectual leader on the bench. the detroit news said his record suggests, quote, he will maintain a commitment to interpreting the law as it is written, not how he may wish it had been crafted. well, that's exactly what

americans should be looking nor a supreme court justice, because a judge's job is to apply the law not to rewrite it. people looking to judge kavanaugh's record are reaching the conclusion that he knows the right way to approach this very important job. and it's not just newspapers that are saying wonderful things and singing the prays of judge kavanaugh. legal scholars are living up to commend -- legal scholars are lining up to commend his workous a judge. they just respect him that much as a judge that they find he has been devoted to the law and the constitution. imagine that. that's what we should expect in anybody who serves as a justice of the supreme court. so there's a law professor from yale who wrote an op-ed for "the new york times" last week entitled "a liberal's case for brett kavanaugh," a liberal's case. the professor called judge kavanaugh, quote, a superb nominee and said it is hard to

name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of judge kavanaugh. another liberal law professor called him a, quote, highly qualified, mainstream conservative judge. he cited judge kavanaugh's reasoning as, quote, an example of the judging ideal, setting aside ideology and party politics and just trying to get the law right. that's a former law -- liberal law professor. he said, judge kavanaugh gives, quote, an independent judiciary the job it is supposed to do -- interpret the law. you know, there are lawyers who appear before judges in court and there are lawyers who appear before judge kavanaugh who have said the same thing. there are surveys of these lawyers -- and i am not a lawyer. i haven't done these sorts of things. but i understand there are surveys of lawyers who appear before judges in court, people who have won cases, people who have lost cases, but they've put up their ideas of what they

thought about the judge afterwards and across the board they call him an excellent judge. they say that he, quote, had as a history of excellent legal argument and analysis. you want somebody that can think intellectually, think clearly, come up with a legal argument and analysis to make the assessment, to apply the law as written. one lawyer actually said, quote, it's daunting and humbling to be in front of that brainpower. an anonymous survey of lawyers who appeared before judge kavanaugh. i don't know if they won or lost, but people get to put their opinions in, winners and losers after cases, anonymous cases -- daunting and humbling to be in front of that brainpower. so it wasn't the people just trying to kiss up to the judge, win favor in a case, that appear before him. these are results of people after the case. they're just telling it like it is. excellent legal justice, they say. so if you look beyond the

courtroom, people are just as willing to talk about judge kavanaugh's character as a person -- not just a judge, because that's part of it. you look at somebody's legal philosophy, you look at their intellect and you look at their character when you try a ssess a judge that's been nominated to figure out if this is the right person to be a justice of the supreme court. "the washington post" even ran a piece past a woman that knows judge kavanaugh from the basketball team. he has a willingness to help when called on. there are three things that i look for in a nominee to the supreme court -- judicial philosophy, strong intellect, solid character. so what we're hearing is overwhelming evidence from people who know him, that judge kavanaugh has all of these qualities. he's someone to takes the law and the constitution at face value. the constitution is a legal document, not a living document. it was built for certainty.

he knows that the judge's job is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the berm, not to make -- from the bench, not to make laws, not to make policy. that's what he said in a speech last year. got an extremely strong intellect. i just can't imagine there's anyone out there that can deny that. daunting and humbling to be in front of that brainpower. that's what one of the lawyers who appeared before him said. and he is a person of solid character. that's what we're hearing from people who have known him over the years, from being extremely is active in the community. "the new york times" summarized it. a conservative stalwart wins prays for his intellect and civility, july 10. so, what is there for the democrats who come to the floor to object to? why are some democrats already saying they oppose a judge known for his intellect and civility? they've said it -- we've heard it on tv and on the floor, beforest even nominated -- before he was even nominated by

president trump. it is astonishing to see democrats make that decision. then they're asking for reams and reams of documents. what are they looking for? it is amazing, madam president, because that's what the big difference is, i believe, between the republicans and democrats in washington. republican presidents choose judges and justices to follow the law. democrat presidents seem to pick judges and justices who are guaranteed to push liberal policies and liberal agendas. preconceived notions of how they should rule on a case before they hear the facts. they know the way they're going to go, maybe use things like emotion, sympathy, empathy. the constitution is a legal document. even though you've got legal experts from around the political world and around the spectrum on all sides of the aisle who prays his intellect and -- who praise his intellect and civility, not good enough for the liberal arrangement

visits. they don't want to consider his legal qualifications. and they've said it here on the senate floor and on television, if you listen. they're already making opposition to his nomination a liberal litmus test for democrats in this senate. sorry to say that more than a few democrats seem to be playing a long. we've seen democrats in the senate who have already said they don't care about judge kavanaugh's intellect, they don't care that he is just trying to get the law right. they don't care that, as one lawyer said, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of judge kavanaugh. so when you have someone with these qualifications, senators ought to be looking at his record. they should lookality the 300 decisions he's written in 12 years on the bench. absolutely the right thing to look at. they should meet him, talk with him. we've just begun this confirmation hearing process. i hope that more democrats will have an open mind about this

nominee. i hope they'll consider the kind of person we should have on the supreme court and then make their decisions about whether judge kavanaugh has those qualities. from what i've seen, he absolutely does, so i plan to continue to look into his record, listening to the people who know him best. i plan to sit down and talk with him. everything i've seen so far, madam president, tells me that this is someone who is exactly the kind of justice we need on the supreme court. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. to my colleagues, let me just say we must speak out and act. president trump's appearance with russian president putin, a united states president exit --

capitulating to a strongman dictator unprecedented in american history, compromised america's national security and brings into question as to whether america can be relied upon as the leader of the free world. with mr. trump standing with mrd america's investigation into the russian meddling, this is an american president with a dictator challenging the investigation being done against russia. the president questioned the u.s. intelligence agency's conclusions. he left unchallenged mr. putin's lies and illegal military invasions. in short, mr. trump did mr. putin's bidding. in russia, they're smiling. at the white house, they're

scrambling. congress must speak out and act. congress must repudiate the president's actions and make it clear to the american people and the world russia, directed by mr. putin, attacked our free election system in 2016 and tried to tip the scales in favor of mr. trump. russia illegally invaded the sovereign state of the ukraine and illegally annexed crimea, which the united states must make clear we will never recognize. russia, under mr. putin, murders its political opponents and journalists. russia has interfered in the politics of several european democratic states. madam president, six months ago i authored on behalf of the senate foreign relations committee democrats a report entitled "putin's asymmetrical

assault on democracy and europe: complications for -- implications for u.s. national security." i sent a copy of that report to president trump and hoped he would absorb it, use it in his meeting with mr. putin. unfortunately, he either didn't read it or didn't heed to the voice in that report. that report spells out in detail the asymmetrical arsenal mr. putin uses. yes, he uses his military, propaganda, cyber, supports organized crime, corruption, weaponizes energy, and sports fringe political groups -- supports fringe political groups all to attack our democratic system of government. the report spells out numerous recommendations that we should take to protect our national security against what russia is trying to do to us. the report spells out several recommendations i just want to underscore today. we urge the president to assert

presidential leadership and launch a national response, an interagency response so we make it clear that we won't tolerate this. mr. trump has done just the opposite. he's down played any significance to what russia has done, has not allowed us to have a coordinated effort at the executive branch, and has fought what congress has tried to do in giving additional resources in order to prepare against what mr. putin is doing. the report goes on to further recommend that we expose and freeze kremlin-linked dirty money. the administration has not done that. it goes on to say that we subject state hybrid threat actors to an escalating sanctions regime. here, madam president, congress did act. we passed the caatza statute that requires, these are mandatory sanctions against russia because of what they did

to us in 2016 and what they did to us in the ukraine in other activities and this administration has not fully utilized those sanctions available under legislation that we passed. the report calls upon publicizing the kremlin's global malign influence efforts, built an international coalition to counter hybrid threats. mr. trump did just the opposite in his most recent foreign trip. his performance in brussels with nato and then later in london, he not only took that opportunity to criticize two of our closest allies -- mrs. merkel in germany and ms. may in london, england, in u.k. -- but he also challenged the unity of europe weighing in in regards to brexit and the politics of brexit. that's not how the president brings unity among our allies in order to stand tall against the

threats of russia. the report goes on to say we need to build global cyberdefenses and norms. congress has appropriated funds. the administration has not fully utilized those funds. we need to hold social media companies accountable. we've seen infiltration of russia into our social media platforms. europe has already taken action to make sure that's identified and protected against infiltration of foreign entities getting involved and trying to influence policy in their country. the united states under mr. trump has not taken similar action. first and foremost, we need to recognize russia for what it is today. not the russian people, but its leader -- under its leadership of mr. putin, russia is an adversary. they're against our system of government and they're trying to bring down our system of government. i saw the president's tweet this morning. i just want to acknowledge we want to have relations with all

countries in the world. i want the relationship between the united states and russia to be on a better plateau. but it's got to be under our terms, not mr. putin's terms. and that's what the problem with the president did in helsinki. he allowed mr. putin to control the dialogue and allowed mr. putin to look like everything he's doing is reasonable when it's not. if you give mr. putin space, he will push to fill it. and then he will go even farther. ten years ago mr. putin saw an opportunity. he saw an opportunity to put a wedge in regards to the nato expansion and the growth of a unified western front. he saw that opportunity in the independent state of georgia, and he took advantage of that. russian troops invaded, and they're still there today. and georgia is still not part of

nato. mr. putin's strategy paid off. the western world gave him that open space. he took advantage of it. in 2014, mr. putin, based upon his experiences in georgia and also, by the way, based upon his experience in moldova, said we can do the same in ukraine, and they invaded ukraine. they took over crimea. they illegally annexed crimea, and guess what? ukraine today is nowhere closer to being a nato ally as a result of mr. putin's strategies. it worked for him. not for us. that's not in our national security interest. and the president gives him a pass. they tried it in montenegro. russia financed operations of a coup to try to prevent the parliamentary elections from having a government that would ratify the nato. the people in montenegro stood

up and said no. they fought it and they won. and now montenegro is a nato ally. so we can -- can't give this space to mr. putin. mr. putin not just in the united states but in europe interfered in elections. but what happened in 2016 in america? madam president, this is a fact. this is not subject to debate. we know that russia directed by mr. putin interfered in our elections. that's been confirmed by our intelligence community. it's been confirmed by our own intelligence committee here in the united states senate. so this is not a, something that you debate. we know that as a fact. and understand the president has tried to convince the public here in america that may not be true, but that's the facts. we know the facts. we're privy to the facts. so we know that russia interfered in our elections. but the message from helsinki,

the president trump's message to president putin is that okay, let's move on. that gives space to mr. putin, his calculations. 2018, fair game. do whatever aoeupt to in the u.s. -- i want to in the u.s. elections. after all i know the president will be on my side and will not hold me, russia, accountable for interference in the u.s. elections. that's certainly not in our interest. congress must speak out and act. we've got to protect the, this country. it's our responsibility. we're an independent branch of government. we need to speak out on behalf of our nation. so let me just lay out issues that i hope that we will do. in response to the president's summit with mr. putin but also because it's our responsibility as an independent branch of government to speak out for

america, first we need to protect the integrity of the mueller investigation. i'm not going to prejudge what the mueller investigation will come in with. i have confidence that mr. mueller will do his work. mr. trump has been openly critical over and over and over again about this investigation. it's outrageous that the head of the executive branch of government is trying to compromise the checks and balances in our own system, but we have to make sure that check and balance remains. we've got to make sure that we protect the integrity of the mueller investigation. congress needs to pass legislation, and there's legislation that's been recommended by our judiciary committee, that would protect the integrity of the mueller campaign. we should take up that information, that legislation and pass it immediately. i said, madam president, i won't prejudge what mr. mueller will come in with. we know there's already been people indicted.

we know that russia's been engaged in the election. we know some americans were involved. was there collusion with the trump campaign? that will be up to the mueller investigation to give us those findings. but we do know by helsinki that mr. trump openly clued with mr. putin -- colluded with mr. putin in regards to an orchestrated message coming out of helsinki. secondly, congress needs to exercise its oversight capacity with hearings. it's our responsibility. i was pleased to see that senator corker announced that secretary pompeo, the secretary of state, will be before the senate foreign relations committee wednesday of next week. this meeting is long overdue. let me just remind my colleagues that this meeting was being set up to get our very first briefing on what happened in singapore in the president's meeting with kim jong un in north korea.

we haven't had a single briefing in congress on the north korean summit. and now we have mr. pompeo coming up here for north korea. i would just urge mr. pompeo and senator corker, let us make sure that mr. pompeo is prepared and has the time not only to address north korea, but also address what happened in helsinki. we have a right, an obligation to find out. and while we are able to question representatives from the executive branch in regards to helsinki, let's make sure that we have a chance to talk to ambassador huntsman, our ambassador to russia, to get his take on what happened and his assessment. we need to talk to our d.n.i. director as to his assessments. we need to have oversight

hearings here in congress. and most importantly, we need to understand what happened in the room, where it happened, where mr. putin and mr. trump spent over two hours. we have no information about what happened in that room. we have a responsibility as members of congress to understand what discussions took place or commitments in regards to our elections, in regards to ukraine, in regards to syria, in regards to north korea, in regards to iran. we have a lot of, a lot of interest in knowing what took place, and we should get that information now. that's our constitutional responsibility. we need to speak out and act to carry out our responsibility. this is not a partisan issue. this is a constitutional issue

of what we do. we're a check and balance in the system. the public expects us to act that way and to get that information. we should also strengthen the sanctions regime against russia. i say that mindful that the bill that we passed last year, i worked with one of my colleagues in drafting that bill. it provides a whole array of options to president trump to impose new sanctions against russia for their activities. many of these sanctions, by the way, madam president, are mandatory. the president has no discretion. i say that with somewhat disbelief because these sanctions have not been imposed yet even though they are mandatory sanctions. so congress needs to speak out and act. we need to speak out to make sure that these sanctions are, indeed, imposed, and we've got

to make sure we strengthen the sanction regime if the president needs more of a reminder or needs additional tools in order to act against russia. one thing we want to make crystal clear. we don't want to see the weakening of any of these sanctions. i think many of us know of conversations that took place in the past about mr. trump's thoughts about easing up some of these sanctions. we've got to make sure, in fact, they are not. it was interesting during the summit there was a conversation against mr. prouder, that's the sanctions that have been imposed by congress. i was proud to work with senator mccain on that legislation. we have to make sure that is strengthened, not weakened. that is our responsibility to make sure that takes place. madam president, we also make sure that we protect the integrity of our election system. we've appropriated funds for this.

there is legislation that is pending by members of the senate on the other side of the aisle. we now know that we are even more vulnerable of seeing some indictments of late that point this out to what russia could be doing in the 2018 elections which are only months away. one of the fundamental principles of our dmotioncy is that there are free and fair elections. we need to make sure that they are free from international tampering and the influence that russia may try to play in this election cycle. we need to take concrete steps to ensure that that is son. lastly, -- is done. lastly, i think the senate should go on record reputing the president's actions in helsinki. we need to bring to the floor of the united states senate such a resolution. it is our responsibility to consider such a resolution. by passing such a resolution, we

can restore confidence to the american people and to the world that the united states, indeed, is the leader of the free world. with that, madam president, i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise to speak to the integrity and career of mr. oldham. andy represents the best of what texas' legal community has to offer to our federal courts. andy oldham was born to high school sweethearts. his parents, like their grandparents before them, new struggles and hard work. andy's father was raised in a trailer with four other siblings. and his father, andy's grandfather, spent years away from his family, first fighting in world war ii and then korea. his mother was raised by her divorced mother, andy's mother

helped manage the household starting at age eight. growing up in these humble beginnings taught both of andy's parents the value of hard work. his mother drove a cement truck and cleaned deep fryers in restaurants to pay his way through college and his mother was one of the first women to attend the university of virginia. together both enrolled in the medical college of virginia where his father became a doctor and his mother became a dentist. andy's parents had enormous student debts to pay, and so andy learned what it was like to grow up with little as well. but he likewise learned the value of an education from his parents. andy went to university of virginia on a full academic scholarship, graduating with a perfect 4.0 g.p.a., and at the top of his class. he went on to become a truman

scholar and he graduated from harvard magnum cum laude and clerked for one of the most respected judges and clerked for samuel alito and worked as an attorney advisor in the united states department of justice in the george w. bush administration. andy then went into private practice at kel og, -- kellog, hanson and then went on to serve as the deputy solicitor general of texas. i can tell you that office is usually a pretty tight ship. after that, he joined governor abbott to serve as his legal counsel. he's now the general counsel for the governor as he spent all but three years of his career in public service.

mr. president, may i say, it shows a depth of character, madam president, and a devotion to his country that andy would stay in public service for so long, so dutifully while forgoing the great rewards that come with private practice. he is devoted to the practice of law, and over the years andy has displayed a keen understanding of the constitution, how it applies and guides us to this very day. i'm confident that andy will not substitute his own policy preferences and his own opinions for the rule of law, but he will instead serve the people of texas and the american people by respecting the law as written, as written in the constitution, and as written in federal law passed by this congress and signed by the president. our courts, our country, are well served by judges with this

dedication, with wisdom and forbearance. in his career andy has argued across the country in state and federal courts. he has appeared and argued numerous times before the fifth circuit and argued twice before the united states supreme court. he has earned widespread praise from both democrats and republicans. and he was recommended to the judiciary committee by esteemed legal voices from both the left and the right. andy is respected across the political spectrum, and my know my colleagues in the senate will return the same respect when they vote today to confirm andy oldham as a circuit judge to the united states circuit court of appeals to the fifth circuit. andy will be the fiftd judge we -- fifth judge we have confirmed to the circuit court. andy will be the third texan and the fifth fifth circuit judge in the last year and a half, and that, i think, is one of the

greatest legacy of president trump and this republican senate are the principled constitutionalists who we are confirming to the federal court, judges who will be faithful to the constitution and bill of rights, who will stand steadfastly to protect our fundamental liberties, to protect the right to keep and bear arms, to protect the tenth amendment, the fundamental liberties of the people against federal power. this is why the american people elected this majority and it's a legacy that will benefit texans and americans for generations to come. madam speaker, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i

ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, as we all know in this country, in 2016, the russian government waged a covert, multifaceted criminal campaign to interfere in our elections. now we know it was intended to help then-candidate donald trump win the presidency. we don't know the full impact from russia's interference, but it's beyond debate that it happened. russia, as we now found out, used inflammatory propaganda, actually was fake news, attempting to suppress democratic turnout and blue support for donald trump. he also stole communications belonging to the democratic national committee and the clinton campaign, which were then strategically released to maximize the impact, and they were released at times when they

could counter negative news stories about donald trump. and then just last week, 12 russian intelligence officers were charged with hacking campaign officials' e-mails and state election boards. in just over a year of what may rank as the most productive special counsel investigation in our nation's history, 32 people and three companies have been charged or pled guilty as part of the russian investigation. we likely won't know the full extent of russia's interference until the special counsel's investigation is complete. but what is clear -- and this is what should concern republicans and democrats alike -- what is clear is that our democracy, our great country was attacked by a foreign adversary.

two days ago, on an international stage standing shoulder to shoulder with vladimir putin, our president sided with that attacker. instead of forcefully condemning russia's attack on our democracy or condemning its role in annexing crimea or poisoning individuals with chemical weapons on the soil of one of our closest allies or russia's downing of a passenger airline with nearly 300 innocent civilians on board or undermining democracies around the world, our president offered only praise for the authoritarian president putin. he then repeated his conspiracy theories about the f.b.i. he called the russia investigation a witch hunt by the f.b.i. he denigrated our law enforcement institutions while standing behind the flag that

they have worked so hard to protect all republicans and democrats alike. in my 44 years as a senator, i have never seen anything like it. i can think of no republican president, no democratic president who would ever do this i never thought it would be possible in our country before president trump took office. yesterday, the president attempted to walk back his decision to side with russia over our own intelligence agencies. he attempted to do it because of the criticism he got from both republicans and democrats. but, as many of my colleagues told me would happen, he immediately walked back his walkback. president trump walked back his

walkback. he reiterated that the interference could be other people also. there are a lot of people out there. and this morning on twitter where apparently he does his deepest thinking, he claimed that people at the higher ends of intelligence loved his press conference in helsinki. i do not think anyone here doubts that the president meant what he said and simply meant in helsinki, but after a two-hour private meeting in helsinki, i don't think president putin has any doubt either. madam president, we have to know , russia shares neither our values nor our interests. russia is not our friend. of course we want to see improved relations with russia and syria on nuclear proliferation, on many critical issues. for that to happen, russia needs

to respect our democracy and values. we must not slouch down to theirs. the united states is the leader of the free world. the free world is under threat, as it has often been. but these threats are not supposed to come from within. just moments ago when i asked if russia is still targeting the united states, the president inexplicably said no, that is not the truth. russia is still targeting the united states, and this is despite his director of national intelligence, dan coats, confirming just last week that russia is indeed still targeting our digital infrastructure and interfering in our democracy. director coats compared it to the warning signs that emerged prior to the 9/11 attacks.

the president denies that it is happening. i know director coats. i served with him when he was a republican senator in this body. i know that he would not say this if it was not so. notwithstanding the president saying russia -- his own director from national intelligence says they are. and it says we can't trust this president's judgment when it comes to russia, remember the president takes an oath to protect and defend our nation. when it comes to russia, it appears he does not intend to abide by his oath to protect and defend our nation. and this congress is going to be derelict in its duty if it takes no action. all of us have to speak with a single voice in this moment, republicans and democrats alike. we should all condemn the

president's actions which were as dangerous as they were shameful. these condemnations are important but words are not enough. remember congress is a co-equal branch of government. remember the senate is supposed to be the conscience of the nation. let's act like it. the president obviously can't be trusted to keep his hands off of the russia investigation. biden grating it at every opportunity, by dismissing its lead investigator last year, he has repeatedly failed the test. well, madam president, the senate judiciary committee recently passed legislation, a strong republican vote of republicans and democrats alike. we voted to protect the special counsel's investigation. that legislation is before the senate. let's enact it into law. let's take what republicans and democrats together said in the judiciary committee.

we will protect the special counsel's investigation. let's vote on it. let's vote up or down. let's do it. let's enact it into law. it is often said the only thing president putin responds to is strength. let's show him that here in the congress we stand united to his opposition to his ongoing attempts to attack our democracy. believe me, madam president, they are ongoing, they are ongoing right at this moment. let's pass stronger sanctions targeting him and the oligarchs who enable him, to continue to help him because they become billionaires by doing it. let's pass a resolution making it clear if president trump chooses to stand with president putin, he stands a loan. the european union is not at fault, and president putin is not our friend. our allies around the world, especially those who have stood with us since world war ii, are

looking at us at this moment. they are questioning whether the united states would be a reliable partner in the face of creeping authoritarianism, both at home and abroad. let's show them where we stand. this is not about politics. it's not about republicans or democrats. this is about who we are as a country, what we stand for as americans, whether we stand for democracy and whether we stand for freedom, including the freedom of the press, whether we stand for the rule of law, whether we stand for truth, whether we stand for america. as a vermonter and as a united states senator, i know where i stand, and it's time we stand together. and, madam president, i believe i have colleagues on the floor who are going to make a unanimous consent request, but before they do, i just want to -- again, i feel obliged to

speak up about the steady erosion of the norms and traditions that protect the senate's unique constitutional role with respect to the lifetime appointments to our federal courts. we should all be alarmed by the judiciary committee's abrupt change and course when it comes with respect to blue slips that allow home state senators to have a word in what happens. this should concern us all. without blue slips, nothing prevents a california nominee from being appointed to a texas court, or vice versa. i will vote against mr. bounds. if we abandon our long-standing tara digz -- traditions and chase partisan exmediancy, it provides only short advantage and inflingts harm on this body. i have protected both

republicans and democrats in a democratic and republican administration, the blue slips. we're better off when we follow the tradition we always have. we foolishly hurt ourselves and our individual states when we allow it to step -- step away from it. i ask consent that my whole statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i'm go to engage in a brief colloquy and unanimous consent request with my colleague, the senator from california. i ask consent notwithstanding the previous order to be able to have you have to five minutes to do that prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lee: madam president. mrs. feinstein: madam president, reserving the right to object. mr. lee: madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 297, s. 118, the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. feinstein: i reserve the right to object. i rise today to express concern with s. 116, the reinforcing american-made products act, because it would preempt california's strong made in america labeling standard. california requires at least 90% of a final product be composed of american-made parts to use the label, the strongest standard in the nation. this bill would underdo california's tough standard, setting instead a watered down national standard. companies could then confuse

consumers by flooding the market with products sold under the made in america label that were built using more foreign-made components. that's why the california attorney general, the consumer federation of california support keeping california's strong standards in place. the made in america label should promote u.s. manufacturing and give consumers confidence that they are supporting american jobs. consumers want to know that products bearing the made in america label are truly made in america because this would undermine that confidence and preempt california's strong standards. i believe this bill should not move by unanimous consent. regretfully, for those reasons, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i