select "washington journal," and you can find other segments there as well. [audio difficulty] to be a judge on the 11th circuit court. ms. grant was a clerk for the current supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh, she was also on the list to replace retiring justice anthony kennedy. a vote on her nomination scheduled for 5:30 eastern. 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. holy god, as we strive to renew our minds through the power of your divine presence, show us how to discern what your will is for our lives.

lord, prepare our lawmakers to be sober-minded and filled with your spirit, accomplishing the tasks that receive heaven's approval. lord, keep our senators on the path of integrity as they strive to ensure that their conduct rightly represents you. may they live lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for the day when you will establish your kingdom on earth. lord, prepare our senators to stand before you in peace without spot or blemish.

we pray in your holy name, amen. the president pro tempore: amen. please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we'll finish up a set of

appropriations measures we've been considering for several days and take four more big steps toward our goal of completing a regular appropriations process and funding the government in a time ly and orderly manner. we'll authorize vital resources for our nation's armed forces and we'll attend to several other priorities as well, including extension of flood insurance and sending the bipartisan farm bill to a conference with the house. but first later today the senate will vote to advance the nomination of britt grant, the president's selection to serve on the 11th circuit court of appeals. this stanford law graduate has served the people of joker juror for -- of georgia for six years. all eight of her fellow justices had this to say in a letter to chairman grassley and senator feinstein -- she is highly intelligent with a

breadth of legal experiential her first focus is always to get the law right. they go on, justice grant's character and integrity is unquestioned. she has an excellent reputation in the legal community and a well-balanced judicial temperament. in sum, they write, justice grant displace all the -- displays all the qualities of an excellent judge. our loss would be the 11th circuit's gain. her colleagues include appointees of republican governors and democratic governors. they've seen they are work up close. they've seen her legal expertise and commitment to the rule of law enforcement they've seen her economics that in her own -- her conviction thatter in her own words, the role of law is to interpret the law mott to make it. current and former state solicitors from across the country testified to her congeniality and work ethic and

say that justice grant, quote, has treated colleagues, opposing counsel, and the litigants appearing before her with respect. the understanding of a judge's role and the temperament to execute it is precisely the approach that our constitutional order requires of our judges. i look forward to voting to advance justice grant's nomination later today and urge each of my colleagues to join me. now, in a final matter, on friday you the commerce department reported some outstanding news. in the second quarter of 2018, the united states real gross domestic product grew by 4.1%. this number is just the latest point in a long series of evidence that shows the american economy is thriving. but as i pointed out, it's a mistake to view this growth and the new prosperity for american families that it entails primarily as an achievement of

government. it's american workers, american job creators, and american entrepreneurs who grew our economy faster than 4% this quarter. we have driven the number of americans filing for unemployment benefits to its lowest level in over 48 years and created 3.7 million jobs since the 2016 election. we repatriated more than $300 billion from overseas in the first quarter of this year alone, according to the commerce department, bringing that money home to our country. this is what free enterprise can achieve when washington stops raising taxes, micromanagings the economy through the sprawling regulatory state, and presuming that it's better to funnel money and power to bureaucrats than to trust hardworking families and small business owners to live her that enlives. so it's the american people who deserve the credit for the successes of their economy.

here's what this united republican government is doing -- cutting their taxes, rolling back the red tape, and moving down -- and mowing down one hurdle after another that has held our country back. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: on friday, the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley, sent a letter to the george w. bush library requesting only a small portion of judge kavanaugh's records. traditional letters from the senate judiciary committee requesting the letters of a supreme court nominee have been bipartisan and complete. when democrats were in the majority, we joined with the republican minority and requested all, not some, all of

elena kagan's documents. when democrats were in the minority we requested all of sotomayor's documents. at republicans' insistence, that included documents from 30 years ago when she served as a board member of the puerto rican legal defense fund because they had questions about her views on certain of those issues. it was a request that we thought stretched a little far, but we went along for the sake of transparency and openness. so this idea that it should only be the legal records is totally undone by what they requested of judge sotomayor. now the republicans are in the majority, the shoe's on the other foot, and chairman grassley unfortunately has broken with all precedent and refused democratic requests for judge kavanaugh's full record. he sent a letter to the

archivist at 5:00 p.m. friday, usually when people do things they don't want people to catch wind of, making such a request. my republican colleagues know that this was wrong. that's why they sent it so late on a friday, hoping to bury it. this letter makes it clear that republicans intend to block the senate and the american people from access to the bulk of judge kavanaugh's white house records. so the question looms, what are they hiding? what are they afraid of? why wouldn't they normally grant the kind of openness to records that america prides itself on? why wouldn't they grant a request for openness of records when we are going to vote on someone who will have huge powe over the lives of average americans for a whole generation? why shouldn't we see what that record's about before we vote?

in his letter -- in this letter, senate republicans are only requesting documents from two of the five years that judge kavanaugh was in the white house, only documents from his time in the white house counsel's office, not as staff secretary, but staff secretary was the most senior job in the white house the nominee held. in judge kavanaugh's own words, the position of staff secretary was hugely influential in his career. he worked there during a time of great controversy. over the weekend "the new york times" reported, for instance, that as staff secretary, brett kavanaugh likely oversaw president bush's controversial signing statements on torture. by his own account, he was involved in president bush's decision to select a supreme court justice. why the heck that's not relevant to choosing him as a supreme court justice is beyond explanation. they can't give an explanation.

they just want to rush it through. there is no good reason to argue that judge kavanaugh's time as staff secretary isn't relevant, yet senate republicans requested none, absolutely none of the records from this period in kavanaugh's career. what are they hiding? worse yet, here's what we learned friday. amazing. the documents we are going to receive are being screened by a partisan lawyer with ties to president trump and steve bannon. that's right, the lawyer going over these documents, screening them not only has ties to president trump but steve bannon, one of the most partisan people that this administration has ever seen. my republican friends are checking all the boxes on the obstruction list, hiding

documents, collaborating with political operative lawyers, and then causing the process to slow down so that there is as little time for the american people to review the documents as possible. a bipartisan letter should have been sent two weeks ago when democrats were in charge. that's what we did. we answered -- we didn't tell the republican minority you can have this request and not that. senator grassley says, well, there was never a white house counsel, white house secretary. what's the difference? as a republican, he requested, they requested judge sotomayor's records for the puerto rican legal defense fund 30 years earlier. we didn't say that's a difference. every request was granted. why are they not being granted now? they're hiding something is what many people would say. i hope my colleagues will bring these political games to an end for the sake of our country, for

the sake of comity, for the sake of bipartisanship. our republican friends talk a game of bipartisanship but never seem to act it out. and they invoke a double standard. what was good for them when they were in the minority is not good for us now that we're in the minority. the senate and the american people deserve access to the full records from the man who has been nominated to a lifetime appointment in such a powerful position as justice of the supreme court. i hope my colleagues on the republican side will bring these games to an end. now on britt grant, the new nominee for the 11th circuit court of appeals, britt grant through the career expressed views far outside the mainstream. when you read this list you'll say how did they come up with someone so on the fringe? not someone a mainstream

conservative but way out there. as solicitor general, she defended a law that made it illegal for doctors to perform an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and insisted on an am amicus brief defining marriage between a man and woman does not violent the guarantee of equal protection. she worked on a brief to the supreme court that defended a georgia prosecutor's decision to strike black jurors on their race. she led georgia's challenge to daca, even though 85% and 90% of americans are for daca. before becoming georgia's solicitor general, she argued against the affordable care act, insisted on an amicus brief defending indiana's defunding of planned parenthood, urged the supreme court to gut the voting rights act, and argued to strike down the affordable care act's contraception coverage mandate.

from reproductive rights to civil rights to gun safety, name a partisan legal case from the past five years, and there's a good chance britt grant has been involved, taking up a fringe legal argument way out of the american way stream to weaken well-established rights and overturn a precedent in pursuit of an ideological objective. i'd also like to bring to my colleagues' attention that in speeches and handwritten notes, even with this extreme record, judge kavanaugh has repeatedly praised britt grant's record. in fact, kavanaugh called britt grant a superb solicitor general of georgia. that's someone of these extreme views. judge kavanaugh's ringing endorsement of britt grant's record may serve as a window into his own judicial philosophy. it makes you wonder what exactly

does judge kavanaugh agree with her on so that he'd call her so many laudatory things. does he agree with britt grant that a woman's tkpwrarpb teed freedom to -- guaranteed freedom to make contraceptive choices should be curtailed even though a majority of americans support roe? does he believe, like britt grant, states should be able to define marriage as only between a man and a woman even though the supreme court has declared things the other way? does he believe like britt grant that insurers shouldn't have to provide contraceptive coverage? britt grant is the kind of lawyer judge kavanaugh in his own words considers superb. maybe that's why they both ended up on the same short list of 25 potential out of the mainstream court nominees, out of the mainstream because they were vetted by the hedger foundation kh-bls -- heritage foundation which believes the government should not be involved in health

care, and by the federalist society whose goal is to repeal roe v. wade even though 71% of americans are against that repeal. whether you're a democrat or republican or independent, you should want a better process for choosing judges. the american people deserve judges from the legal mainstream who will interpret the law rather than make it, who will respect and defer to precedent unless there's a darned good reason not to. not just folks picked off some list prevetted by extreme conservative groups that don't represent what a majority of americans think and probably don't even represent what a majority of republicans think. but the republican majority has been advancing an assembly line of nakedly partisan ideological judges like britt grant, that judge kavanaugh praised her record is so roundly concerning. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, britt cagle grant of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit. mr. wicker: thank you, madam president. i intend to speak for a few moments as if in morning business concerning the national flood insurance program which is set to expire tomorrow night at midnight, july 31, and which certainly this body will not

allow to expire. we will undoubtedly reauthorize the program and not leave millions of americans without flood protection at the height of the atlantic hurricane season. the house insists legislation that provides for a clean reauthorization, temporary as it may be, and it will leave the program going without any reforms or changes, and it reassures homeowners, property owners across the country who rely on this program that it will still be there, that they can count on it. we're not bathing ourselves in glory by doing this. i think we would all acknowledge passing this reauthorization right before the deadline does not -- does not entitle us to pat ourselves on the back. instead, madam president, it should motivate members to work across the aisle to provide meaningful reforms, and i have a suggestion or two for some

meaningful reforms when we take this up on a permanent basis. we may have assured americans -- we may assure americans today and tomorrow when we act on this that they can rely on the national flood insurance program through november, but we need to assure them that they can rely on the program for the next year, for the next five years, or ten years. and that will be a challenge over the next several months. we need to make this program financially sustainable for the long term, but we also need to assure property owners that they're not going to be hit with a huge insurance bill that they can't afford. history does not provide the public with very much encouragement in the regard of actually getting some reforms done. they're going to keep it going

with a patchwork. but out of 41 times that the national flood insurance program has been reauthorized over the past 20 years, reforms have been included only three times out of 41. not a great record, but i hope before the end of this calendar year we can add a fourth substantive change to make some progress. one thing i would hope we could do is to enact the changes to the coastal act in a bill that i have introduced called the coastal implementation act. if you'll recall, after hurricane katrina we saw how discrepancies between wind damage and water damage on the total loss properties often prevented property owners from being made whole. there was a dispute between the flood insurance folks and the wind insurance folks and the

property owner was caught in the middle. the coastal act and follow-up coastal implementation act seek to address these discrepancies with better data collection and more accurate post storm assessments. more specifically, we won't know if the national oceanic and atmospheric association to be able to assess the wind and water at affected sites, and with sound data the property owners can receive fair compensation for their losses. some perhaps from the flood insurance coverage and some from the wind insurance coverage, reducing cases of indeterminant losses would ultimately reduce costs to the national flood insurance program and better serve the public. my other reform proposal also seeks to arm us with better data. and i call this legislation the

mima act, which stands for municipality empowerment mapping achievement, mema. under this act, fema would public the nfip's rate maps. these maps would cover the entire united states, and they would be created using the latest technology, information on area's flood hazard risks should be accessible and it should be comprehensive. accurate maps can also help draw businesses to our smaller communities. without this information, these businesses might go to a nearby urban area to invest. the playing field should be level in this regard. other ideas such as competition to drive down -- competition from the private sector to drive down rates could help high flood insurance rate areas. what we don't want to do is

drive folks away from coastal areas. 40% of our population lives in a coastal county. there are 56 million jobs there, more than $8 trillion is produced in goods and services according to noaa. the mississippi river, for example, accounts for a $400 billion annual economic impact. with communities near a river, lake or ocean suffer, the effects can ripple across the whole nation. try as we might, we can't prevent floods. we can mitigate and try to guard against them and try to strengthen our protection, but we can't eliminate flooding from happening. they are the most frequent natural disaster. but we should do what we can to mitigate the damage and costs. it's also worth reminding my colleagues that the national

flood insurance program is a program that serves ordinary people -- workers and families who are just trying to make an honest living and who do not want to see everything that they have washed away in a flood. these 5 million americans pay their flood insurance premiums, and they should be able to live without worry that should disaster strike, they will be left high and dry. so i call on my colleagues in the next day and a half to pass this short-term authorization, and certainly we will do that on a bipartisan basis. and then let's give the banking committee and people who are concentrating on this issue some bipartisan support to pass much-needed reforms. thank you, madam president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

determine. mr. blumenthal: madam president. the presiding officer: the

senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. madam president, there are -- senator, the senate is in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: i am sorry, madam president. i ask that the mandatory quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. madam president, there are few responsibilities -- i would say none more important than our duties in connection with the appointment of a united states supreme court justice. much is at stake in the nomination that is before the senate now to appoint judge brett kavanaugh as the justice who will replace justice kennedy. so much is at stake. the future of roe v. wade, affordable health care, particularly preexisting conditions, and the protections of them for millions of americans. but i'm not here to talk about

judge kavanaugh as a nominee. i'm here to talk about how we reach a conclusion, how we vote. my colleagues and i. how we seek and pursue the truth about judge kavanaugh, his qualifications, his temperament, his integrity and intellect, who he is, and what kind of justice he will be. and the best way to do it is to know what he has written and said, all of his writings and opinions, the articles that he's written. these points are pretty basic. i am struck by our colleagues' objection to our seeking

documents that they have sought in connection with past nominees when they were made by presidents of our party. president obama nominated justice kagan. republicans asked for documents from her years in the clinton administration, her tenure as dean of the harvard law school, and even her clerkship for justice thurgood marshall. senator grassley, now the chairman of the judiciary committee, said at the time, and i quote, for the senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent, we must get all of her documents and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a justice. i agree. and now, unfortunately, republicans want to apply a completely different standard to

judge kavanaugh. they want his documents kept sealed and stored so that he can waltz on to the court without having to answer tough questions about what he's written and said and done. they maintain that there's nothing in the documents that would be relevant or revelatory. we can't know this supposed irrelevance, and neither can they until we all see those documents. for some reason, the republicans seem worried. they seem concerned. they seem apprehensive. so the american people and we have a right to ask what are

they concealing, and why are they scared? what is judge kavanaugh hiding, and why is he afraid of it? and that's a question he should answer, and they have a responsibility to address before we begin the hearings. because our questions require those documents. there is in fact a lot of good reason to think that those documents will be relevant and revelatory, particularly the documents from his time in the white house. my republican colleagues are now down playing the role that judge kavanaugh had while working for president bush, republican whip, and judiciary committee member john cornyn, our friend and colleague from texas, said that judge kavanaugh was, quote, more

or less a traffic cop. end quote. but that contention contradicts what our colleagues said at the time when judge kavanaugh was a nominee to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. senator cornyn himself said then of judge kavanaugh, and i quote, he is currently staff secretary to president bush, a job whose title belies the very serious and important responsibilities that that individual performs. senator hatch, also a colleague and a very distinguished member of the judiciary committee, said of judge kavanaugh, quote, his background as staff secretary may prove to be particularly good judicial training. but for me, the best indication of how important his role as

staff secretary to president bush, not just as counsel but as staff secretary, was comes from judge kavanaugh himself. quote, when people ask me which of my prior experiences has been most useful to me as a judge, i tell them that all of them have been useful, and i certainly draw on all of them. but i also do not hesitate to say that my five and a half years in the white house and especially -- let me repeat -- and especially my three years as staff secretary for president bush were the most interesting and in many ways the most instructive. i'd read that sentence again, but i'm not sure i need to. it will be in the record. it's well known to many of my

colleagues. and judge kavanaugh went on, quote, as staff secretary, i sat in meetings where he talked with president hu, president musharraf, prime minister blair and pope john paul. i was at the g-8 in scotland when the london subway bombing occurred. i saw and participated in the process of putting legislation together, whether it was terrorism insurance or medicare prescription drug coverage or attempts at immigration reform. i worked on drafting and revising executive orders. he remember times on the hill negotiating last-minute changes in legislation. i saw regulate really agencies screw up. i saw how they would avoid congressional mandates. i saw the difference twean the independent agents -- between the independent agencies and

congressional agencies. that's from judge kavanaugh. if there is any indication as to why we need those documents from the time when he was staff secretary to president bush, it is the words of judge kavanaugh himself. if we want to know what kind of justice he will be, we need to understand the decisions he's made and the lessons he's learned in that most formative job. if we refuse even to try, we have abdicated our constitutional responsibility. we have a duty. i submit with great respect the request made by the chairman of the judiciary committee involves all of us abdicating that

responsibility unless we protest and raise a hue and cry and force production of additional documents. this goes beyond any sort of partisan divide and it goes beyond the question of whether any-my colleagues -- any of my colleagues have vote -- are voting for or against judge kavanaugh. it is about our constitutional responsibility. these documents, as judge kavanaugh himself has said, in effect, would reveal much about judge kavanaugh as he worked on just about every major issue as counselor to president bush, as staff secretary to him. carl rove noted in a recent interview, he said, quote, literally every document that goes to the president on a policy issue has to pass through

the hands of the staff secretary. judge kavanaugh, as he himself has said, was at the president's side at many pivotal moments of the bush presidency, from the passage of partial-birth adorgs, to the ban on partial-birth abortion to debates over same-sex marriage and well beyond. we should know what judge kavanaugh, as staff secretary, said to president bush during those and other critical moments during the bush presidency. his advice and his role in those decisions is relevant. i think that word understates its importance. it is critical to our judgments about his qualification.

perhaps maybe just by chance there's nothing in those documents. when judge kavanaugh was in the white house, maybe he was just a traffic cop, as senator cornyn has claimed, or an honest broker, as the judge described himself at his confirmation hearing. but if that's true, what are they hiding? why do they need to conceal him? we should have the opportunity to determine whether judge kavanaugh was an honest broker, was a traffic cop, just passing documents through his hands without any input, and the best way to do it is by reviewing those documents. so, mr. president, judge kavanaugh really made this very point when he was an appellate court nominee at his confirmation hearing, he was

asked how senators should assess his record. he answered, quote, i think that's done through an assessment of going back. in my case, 16 years of ma career and -- in my career and things i have done in the staff secretary's office. we should heed those words. they are the words of judge kavanaugh. we should examine all the documents. it may take some additional time to review all those documents but maybe not if there's nothing in there that relates to his views and his opinions and his role. if he was just the traffic cop or honest broker, we can get through them very, very quickly, but regardless of the time involved, there's no more important task that we will undertake as united states senators, than deciding his qualifications to be a justice on the united states supreme

court. anything less would be a dereliction of our duty. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, last week the house voted overwhelmingly by 356 to 52 to extend the national flood insurance program for four months until november 30, 2018. it is to allow continued efforts of this program to make it more accountable, more affordable and more sustainable. two weeks ago the senate demonstrated almost unanimous support for a six-week extension of the national flood insurance program. now, the nfip, as the flood insurance program is called, ensures properties in every state, over six million homes and businesses, over $1.2 trillion in assets is --

assets. current law is set to expire tomorrow night at 12:00 a.m. in the morning. if it is not extended, people will not be able to renew their flood insurance policies or purchase new ones. that means more will be uninsured during the peak of hurricane season. ha is not accept -- that is not acceptable. according to the nfip, letting this program expire would cost about 1,300 home sales per day. last week the senate tried to pass the short-term extension that the house passed by unanimous consent, but we were unable. so on friday cloture vote was filed in the senate on the four-month extension that the house passed. the problem is that the cloture vote will not occur until wednesday, setting up the final passage of the extension on thursday. it means the nfip would lapse

for two days. now, it is totally avoidable. it does nothing to advance reforms within the nfip, many of which i proposed a year ago in a long-term reauthorization bill introduced with colleagues from new york and west virginia. the lapse does disrupt real estate transactions for the 2,600 americans trying to close on their home, perhaps their first home, over the next couple of days. by the way, these are not million dollar properties. 98.5% of nfip policies are in parishes or counties with a median household income below $100,000. 62% are in parishes or counties with a median household income of $54,000. congress has always honored flood insurance policies that

nfip policy holders have. i urge my colleagues to expedite the nfip four-month extension and pass it by unanimous consent. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i would ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this afternoon to talk about an important anniversary. this is 53 years today, i should say -- today marks 53 years since the medicare and medicaid programs were created, and i'll speak specifically today about medicaid.

many americans are familiar with all of the benefits that medicaid provides to so many americans, but i don't know if people have a sense of the scope of it. first of all, medicaid helps 70 million individuals and families in every stage of life. medicaid covers nearly half of every -- every one of the births in the united states of america. medicaid covers 40% with health care covers 40% of all children. that's all children across the country. it's also true in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. roughly 40% of all the children in the commonwealth of pennsylvania are covered -- have their health coverage through medicaid. 50% -- roughly 50% of the people with disabilities in our state are covered by medicaid and

about 60% of those needing skilled care, so-called nursing home care. about two million pennsylvanians covered by medicaid. medicaid is currently considered the, quote, gold standard, for children's health care, including the early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment benefits known as ptsid for children. it doesn't get a lot of attention, but a lot of the professionals that understands pediatrics and children's health care will stress the importance of early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment. medicaid helps moms and dads from being forced whether or not to put food on the table or take a child to the doctor. through medicaid, 15 million people with disabilities receive

assistance with our health care or with durable medical equipment such as with wheelchairs or assistive speaking devices, services for daily living, such as personal care attendance, and so many other benefits. if you just focus on the category of americans americansh disabilities who are children, 60% of children in america with a disability are covered by medicaid. medicaid helps americans afford their medicare premiums. so that's the interplay between both the medicaid program and the medicare program. medicaid pays for nursing home care for older relatives who otherwise would -- that otherwise would incur $75,000 per year of expenses that would force countless middle-class families out of their homes and

would deprive them of hard-earned savings. how about our schools? 48% of school districts use medicaid funds to provide medical and therapy services in schools for children receiving special education. medicaid also funds transportation for eligible individuals to receive medical services. and, finally, on this long list, medicaid is the primary payer for opioid addiction, the treatment and services for the opioid addiction, as well as substance use disorder services. all of those issues are critically important to the american people, and especially, of course, the american family. that's why last year, and continuing into 2018, the efforts made to repeal the affordable care act would have the adverse impact on -- have an

adverse impact on medicaid by -- in one sense by decimating the program, badly injuring our ability to deliver all of those health care benefits to children, to people with disabilities, to seniors, and virtually in every bill that was considered in the senate oor the house, -- or the house, the effect on the opioid crisis would be devastating. because of what would happen to medicaid expansion as opposed to the original medicaid program itself. so i hope our republican and friends will consider all of those benefits and the impact on medicaid when their proposing repeal legislation and similar legislative proposals. i want to make a point about one family, which i think in so many ways is emblematic to other

families when it comes to medicaid. in pennsylvania, i received a letter from a mom in southeastern pennsylvania, her name is pam simpson. she was writing about her son, roan. the impact on her son's life is imcomparable. it's hard to comprehend how beneficial it's been. as i said, his mom, pam, sent me a note. here's what she said in pertinent part. i won't read all of it. she r she said, in late january 2016, i applied for medical assistance. that's the medicaid program in pennsylvania, medical assistance. afro han was award -- after rohan was awarded assistance, we obtained wrap around assistance which included behavioral health consul tanlt and a therapeutic

staff support worker. the wraparound services have been a godsend, unquote. pam said, without medicaid, i'm confident i could not work full time to support our family. we would be bankrupt or my son, meaning rohan, would go without the therapies he sincerely needs. she concludes the letter this way, pam simpson. quote, please think of my dear ra when ohan and his happy face, his blue eyes and lovely strawberry blond hair. please think of me and my husband working every day to support our family. please think of my 9-month-old daughter luna who smiles and laughs at her brother daily. she will have to care for rohan later in her life after we are gone. overall, we are desperately in need of rohan's medical assistance and would be devastated if we lost these benefits. unquote. that's one mom talking about her

son in pennsylvania, but of course representative of so many families across the country. we all know here it's pretty evident from the data and where we're positioned in the world that we are both the strongest country in the world, meaning the strongest economy, but also the strongest military power in the world. there's no question about that. but that same country, that same strong country has figured out a way over time to take care of the american family, especially through a program like medicaid. hubert humphrey said it well years ago, maybe said it on the senate floor when he was representing minnesota. he said the moral test of a government is, quote, how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life, and those in the shadows of life. in a sense, talking about children and the -- in the dawn of life, those with disabilities and others who might be in the

shadows of life, and those who are senior citizens in the twilight of their lives. no program, no program touches more americans than the medicaid program. and we must continue to work to fight and keep medicaid strong, not just for the next 50 or 53 because of today's anniversary, but for many years after that. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. perdue: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: mr. president, one of the great honors and privileges and indeed responsibilities of being in the united states senate is that we get to confirm presidential nominations to our country's highest courts. president trump has nominated an outstanding judge to fill an opening on the united states

court of appeals for the 11th circuit. that judge is georgia's supreme court justice britt grant. today the united states senate, tonight we'll vote and invoke cloture on her nomination so we can confirm her later this week. this is a crucial vote tonight. justice grant has served with distinction on the supreme court of georgia since january of 2017. in that role, she has written over 40 opinions on both criminal and civil matters and participated in hundreds of other opinions. her positions are not a mystery, mr. president. we got a long record about how she reacts to defending and upholding our constitution. she served as solicitor general for the state of georgia from 2015 until her appointment to the state supreme court. this year she was elected to her seat on the state supreme court without opposition. mr. president, this is a testament in my state.

when that happens that means people on both sides of the aisle understand how she is applying the rule of law. it's a testament to the quality of her work, the dedication she has to the constitution, and to the people for whom she works. prior to her public service, justice grant argued a commercial litigation case before the highest court of the land, the united states supreme court. by the way, she won. justice grant attended stanford law school and after graduating, she actually clerked for judge brett kavanaugh, another outstanding nominee that will be confirmed hopefully to the united states supreme court later this year. i might add that judge kavanaugh sat through judge grant's confirmation hearing in front of the judiciary committee just some few months ago. he was there for the entire hearing because she did such a good job clerking for him earlier. clearly justice grant is immensely qualified to fill this court of appeals vacancy and there's no doubt in my mind that

she will do a fantastic job regardless of which side of the bench -- which side of the political spectrum we come from. in fact, our country needs more judges like justice grant. i couldn't be prouder of her, her husband justin, their three kids charles, mary elise and jack. knowing their family, it's comforting that a woman can make a career like this so successful and manage her family as well. earlier this year, i was honored to introduce justice grant in her confirmation hearing and to recommend her nomination with my highest recommendation. tonight, mr. president, i strongly urge my colleagues to support her final confirmation to the united states court of appeals for the 11th circuit. with that i yield the floor, mr. president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, i ask to be granted enough time to complete my remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. i come briefly but quickly but prowtdly to recommend brett grant to this body and the united states of america as the next judge from the state of georgia to be on the circuit court. britt grant is an outstanding jurist. she's on the georgia supreme court at the age of 40. she went to stanford university and law school, wake forest university undergraduate. after she left stanford, university, she came to clerk for brett kavanaugh who is nominated for united states supreme court. throughout her legal career whether practicing as an attorney, whether serving as a judge or whatever she did, she was always at the top of her class, the top of her case or the top of her ability. i don't ever remember ever having a judge come before this body since i have been in congress from my home state who had more people pulling for her, more people wanting her to win, more people thinking she was the right person for the right time for the united states of america. so i come down as a senior citizen of georgia to tell you

this -- you have the chance to confirm tonight for a cloture vote and tomorrow for a final confirmation the honorable britt grant of the georgia supreme court on the united states circuit court on the 11th circuit of the united states of america. i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of britt cagle grant of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waved. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of britt cagle grant to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted. any senator with -- wish to change their vote? the yeas are 52, the nays are 44. the motion is agreed to.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators therein permitted to speak for up to ten minutes

each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 599 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 599, designating september 25, 2018, as national lobster day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture motion with respect to the house message to accompany s. 1182 be withdrawn and the motion to refer and the motion to concur with the amendment be withdrawn and the senate vote on the motion to concur without further intervening action or debate at 12:15 tuesday, july 31. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the confirmation vote on the grant

nomination occur at 2:15 tomorrow, july 31. that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. further, that following disposition of the nomination, there be up to five minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, and following the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the shelby amendment to h.r. 6147. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, july 31. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. and that following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the grant nomination. further, that the senate recess following the 12:15 vote until

2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the >> the continuing work on britt grant's nomination to be a judge on the 11th circuit. later this week expect debate to resume on 2019 federal spending bills. more live senate coverage tomorrow here on c-span2. >> supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh continues to meet with senators on capitol hill. follow the confirmation process on c-span leading up to the senate confirmation hearings and the vote. watch live on c-span, watch anytime on c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on "the communicators," british

conservative party member is interviewed by reuters telecom report david shepardson. >> so what's the concern of tech companies? do you see any dislocation of those companies post-brexit? >> a number of concerns. one of them, clearly, is related to immigration. one of the things that tech companies complain to me at the moment anyway, even before brexit, is access to the best global talent. look at silicon valley, they get the best talent in the world. london is a leader, and actually they want access to the best talent in the world. and one of the things i'm saying is, hopefully, after brexit we'll have a policy where you don't give priority to europeans, but we can reach out to the best people in the world. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at eight eastern on c-span c-span2. >> health and human services secretary alex azar discussed free market principles and health care at the