tv U.S. Senate U.S. Senate CSPAN August 22, 2018 4:34pm-7:02pm EDT
4:34 pm
now live to the floor the u.s. senate. ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the work the reporter dozen as members of a free and independent press is vital to our country and tower communities. it is why last week in an unprecedented action, nearly 300 newspapers, a dozen or so in my state, 300 newspapers all over the country came together to stand up for the free press and defend the first amendment. 300 newspapers wrote editorials, all independently written, of course, all different takes on this, but to advocate for a free
4:35 pm
press and to defend the first amendment. the chagrin valley times, not far from where live in ohio, wrote, we are indeed your lens into your community. we are not your enemy. clearly a takeoff on the president's comments that the media are the enemies of the people. the athens news wrote, good reporting often -- good reporting often succeeds in righting wrongs and making things better for people. the "akron beacon journal," one of the great newspapers in this state, wrote power belongs to the people. the press, thus, receives extraordinary protection because of its capacity to inform readers and check the powerful. it's shameful that journalists have to defend their first amendment rights, our first amendment rights, our nation's first amendment rights just so -- just so they can do their
4:36 pm
jobs. as these community papers show us, nothing could be further from the truth. that's why i want to highlight yet another story by an ohio paper informing the public reported by a journalist serving her community. "city beat" in cincinnati describes itself as having been, quote, a voice in greater cincinnati for a quarter of a century, publishing a print edition weekly, producing regular content throughout the week online, to try to help keep you informed of what's happening in your city. a great example of that content is a story last week reported by maya zumo on the black family union taking place in cincinnati celebrating its 30th year. the event was founded in 1989 by the iconic dr. ambassador thigh hight who served as president of the national counsel of negro wellcome for more than 50 years,
4:37 pm
at she reported, the festival brings together community groups, performers and small businesses to, quote, celebrate the values and strengths of the black community. her reporting informed cincinnati readers about the events they could attend that weekend -- parade, festival, church service, other activities. that kind of report something what journalists do every day, every week, every month across ohio and around the country. they serve their readers, their viewers, their communities. they deserve our respect. they don't deserve a president who calls reporters, journalists all kinds of people in this business -- who calls them enemies of the people. reporters serve -- again, they serve their viewers, they serve their readers. they serve their communities. they serve all of us. they deserve our respect. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
4:46 pm
mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that akash singh, immigration counsel with my judiciary committee staff, and robert shiftlett, detail from the department of homeland security, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today i come to the floor to speak about a recent tragedy that has deeply impacted my home state of iowa and i think all of the country because of cable television is well aware of this. yesterday authorities announced they found the remains of a 20-year-old university of iowa sophomore, mollie tibbett of brooklyn, iowa. after searching tirelessly for
4:47 pm
months, state and local law enforcement announced the unthinkable. mollie was murdered in cold blood. i'd like to commend the efforts of all involved in searching for this remarkable young woman, including the iowa division of criminal investigation, the f.b.i., homeland security, and the individual members of the community who volunteered tirelessly to find mollie. americans watched the news every night, all of us, holding out hope that mollie would soon be found and returned to her family. i extend my sincerest condolences and sympathies to rob tibbett, mollie's father and law -- laura calderwood, mollie's mother.
4:48 pm
they spent the last month and a half searching the state for their missing daughter. rob and laura traveled across the state, raised awareness on tv and handed out buttons, t-shirts and missing person fliers at the iowa state fair. both rob and laura showed remarkable bravery in the face of the tragedy. know our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family during this time. for those of us in washington, we ought to try and learn something from mollie's character and the example that she set. as mollie's boyfriend, dalton jack, said, quote, she's not just a missing person flier, end the quote, mollie was an after individual reader who enjoyed the choir, theater and writing. mollie loved her friends and had natural ability working with
4:49 pm
children. her friends say she had a gift to make everyone feel like the most important person in the room. no doubt her nurturing character and her ability to be everyone's counselor, as a friend put it, led her to the university of iowa to study psychology. there, mollie spent her summers taking classes and working at a day camp with the grenell regional medical center where she men toward children. it's no surprise that when mollie went missing then, over 200 people showed up for a vigil in her honor. while we mourn the loss of mollie tibbetts, it is the duty of this senator and every other senator to act to prevent
4:50 pm
further tragedies like this one from devastating family and an entire community. we now know that mollie was murdered by a 24-year-old undocumented immigrant who's been in the united states illegally for four to seven years. that's right, four to seven years this man was here undetected and unaccounted for. this raises questions about his immigration, employment, and criminal history, and we must receive answers. so today i sent a letter to the department of homeland security seeking any immigration history on this man and a briefing to better understand how he was able to get and stay in iowa. this isn't too different than
4:51 pm
i've done many cases where some undocumented person, particularly those who had been deported and returned, asking for questions when there was a tragedy like what happened to mollie. i think of recent cases within maybe the last two years about murders in northern virginia, murders in maryland. the tibbetts family then, the people of iowa as well, and i hope all american public feel they deserve answers. based on the information i do have, it seems this murder was preventable. stricter border security measures, including increased personnel, enhanced technology and modernized infrastructure could have prevented this man from crossing the border. in other words, secure the
4:52 pm
border. stronger interior enforcement, and addressing weaknesses in e-verify could have prevented this individual from working and would have allowed immigration enforcement authority to initiate removal proceedings years ago. earlier this week president trump invited officers and agents of customs and border patrol, border protection and immigration and custom enforcement to the white house to thank all these people and the people under him for all they do on a daily basis to protect americans. recent events are a stark reminder as to how much we need these hardworking men and women.
4:53 pm
amidst cries from the radical far left to abolish law enforcement agencies such as i.c.e., i'm proud to stand here in support of the brave men and women of that agency. customs and immigration enforcement are tasked with protecting the homeland, a duty they willingly accepted on behalf of all americans and, of course, the number-one responsibility of the federal government. every day men and women of the border patrol and of i.c.e., or you could say immigration enforcement, put themselves in harm's way because congress tasked them with this great responsibility. so to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who call for
4:54 pm
abolishing immigration enforcement, i urge caution. we've heard a lot of that lately about abolishing immigration enforcement. scapegoating our uniformed officers who are simply executing the law to launch future presidential campaigns only moves us farther away from another one and farther away from a lasting solution. to put their efforts into perspective, let's take a look at some data. during fiscal year 2017, i.c.e. arrested more than 127,000 aliens with criminal convictions or charges. i.c.e. made 5,225 administrative arrests of suspected gang members. last year the criminal aliens
4:55 pm
arrested by i.c.e. were responsible for more than 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, 48,000 assault offenses, 11,000 weapon offenses, 5,000 sexual offenses, 2,000 kidnapping offenses, and 1,800 homicide offenses. and those statistics are just for i.c.e. enforcement and removal operations. last year i.c.e. homeland security investigations made over 4,800 gang-related arrests. i.c.e. also targets illicit drug flows, human trafficking operations and transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. i.c.e. is part of our broader national security apparatus and
4:56 pm
often works hand in hand with their partners at the department of justice, including drug enforcement, f.b.i., and hundreds of federal prosecutors. in 2017, i.c.e. identified or rescued 904 sexually exploited children and 518 victims of human trafficking. i.c.e. sees more than 980,000 pounds of narcotics just last year, including 2,370 pounds of fentanyl and almost 7,000 pounds of heroin. to my colleagues who have spoken strongly about combatting the moral stain of human trafficking or about ending the opioid epidemic ripping our country, i ask how is i.c.e. anything but
4:57 pm
an indispensable partner in this fight? how can we expect to combat the flow of lethal narcotics without the brave men and women of the border patrol and i.c.e.? just last week i sent a letter to secretaries nielsen and pompeo about an iraqi national who lied about his active membership in isis and al qaeda and iraq so that he could claim refugee status and settle safely in sacramento, california. i.c.e. played a very vital role in his arrest. this weekend i.c.e. deported a nasa prison guard -- a nazi prison guard who was living in queens, new york. and yesterday i.c.e. was immediately on the scene there
4:58 pm
in brooklyn, iowa, when state and local authorities determined the suspect was a foreign national. congress has been dancing around the issue of securing our borders and strengthening interior enforcement for far too long. we've told voters that we'll fix the problem, but we don't seem to get the bills passed with stories like kate steinle, sarah root, kayla cuevis, and now mollie tibbetts continue to appear in the news, and we ought to come to the conclusion that enough is enough. so i urge the senate to put partisanship aside and support sarah's law. that's just one that some of us
4:59 pm
from the midwest have introduced. but we also would like to see justice for kate steinle's murder, because people that have been deported coming back into the united states to do this killing should just for coming back and violating our law over and over and over by crossing into the country without papers, they should have mandatory sentences. so the sarah's law is the bill that i introduced with nor ernst in -- with senator ernst in honor of fellow iowa iowa kwra*pb sarah root killed by a drunk driver driving three times the legal limit. it is a bill that requires the federal government to take custody of anyone who enters the country illegally, violated the terms of their immigration status, and had their visas
5:00 pm
revoked and is thereafter charged with killing or seriously harming another person. it also requires i.c.e. to make reasonable efforts to identify and provide relevant information to crime victims and their families. so i end thinking about mollie's death, but you can continue to think about sarah root, or kate steinle, and others. we haven't responded to it very well. we can and we must do better. now, if i can, madam president, i want to continue to speak, but on another subject. over the last -- past day several of my colleagues issued
5:01 pm
statements calling for judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearing to be delayed. a lot of these colleagues have written me personal letters calling for judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearing to be delayed. some of them have written me very personal letters about cover-ups or hiding or handling documents in ways that they perceive to be different from what other committee chairmen have done. they claim it's because -- well, in regard to the delay of the hearing, they claim that it's because president trump's former lawyer recently pleaded guilty to criminal violations of campaign finance law alleging -- allegedly at president trump's direction.
5:02 pm
i'm not going to delay judge kavanaugh's nomination hearing. there's no precedent for delaying a hearing in these circumstances. in fact, just the opposite. there's clear precedent pointing in the other direction, and i'll give you at least one. in 1994, president clinton nominated justice breyer to the supreme court. at that time, president clinton was under investigation by independent counsel robert fiske in connection with the whitewater land deal. indeed, president clinton's own records were under grand jury subpoena. yet, the senate confirmed justice breyer by a vote of 87-9 during all of that. in fact, president clinton was
5:03 pm
under investigation for much of his presidency and was even impeached for committing perjury. obviously he wasn't convicted, but through all this, the senate didn't stop confirming his lifetime appointments to the bench. president trump is not even close to being in the same legal situation as president clinton, but obviously some people around here think he is. so my colleagues' plea to delay the hearing rings very false considering the precedent i just gave, and maybe historians can give you more precedent. so i want to tell you why. liberal outside groups and senate democratic leaders decided to oppose the president's supreme court nominee by any means necessary.
5:04 pm
they even said so. some even announced their opposition before judge kavanaugh was nominated. the minority leader said he'd fight judge kavanaugh with everything he's got. members of the judiciary committee announced their opposition before giving judge kavanaugh any consideration whatsoever. one member said voting for judge kavanaugh is, quote, unquote, explicit and -- complicit and evil. another member said that judge kavanaugh threatens destruction of the constitution of the united states. the goal has always been the same. delay the confirmation process as much as possible and hope the democrats take over the united states senate in the mid-term elections. the ranking member's hometown newspaper reported on this
5:05 pm
strategy recently, and the headline called it an attempt to stall. the strategies may change, but the goal to obstruct confirmation process remain unchanged. first, democratic leaders tried to apply the biden rule which bars confirmations in presidential elections and which many democrats previously said doesn't even exist, they tried to apply it to even mid-term election. when they used it, it was applied to just presidential elections. now, when this strategy failed because it was completely and flatly false, they changed strategies. they tried pushing for an unprecedented disclosure of judge kavanaugh's executive
5:06 pm
branch documents even though we already received more pages of such documents than any previous supreme court nominee. and this is on top of judge kavanaugh's 12-year judicial track record and other more relevant publicly available materials. now they are trying to latch on to the legal troubles of president trump's former associates. but, as i just explained, there's no precedent or logical reason for the senate to decline to proceed on judge kavanaugh's nomination in these circumstances. it's just another attempt to block judge kavanaugh's confirmation by any means necessary. now, on a related note, we're working to make as many of the
5:07 pm
documents relevant to judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court when we receive them to publicly make them available as soon as possible. it's common practice, i hope everyone knows, to receive documents with a restriction called confidential until we can assure ourselves that we won't disclose sensitive, confidential information to the public in violation of the presidential records act. chairman leahy, who was here on the floor with me, did so during justice kagan's confirmation process, and i'm doing the same. this gives judiciary committee members a jump-start on reviewing documents. because otherwise if you had to
5:08 pm
wait until they were all cleared, you wouldn't even be reading them yet. the goal is to make as many publicly available as possible -- as soon as possible. i had promised to work with president bush and president trump to waive committee confidentiality when the law requires it for specific documents that my colleagues would like to use at confirmation hearings. this is also consistent with how the judiciary committee has handled this issue in the past and, of course, all of my senate colleagues are welcomed to review committee confidential documents at their convenience. simply get in kuch with my -- get in touch with my staff. the staff there will make sure that you have full access to the range of committee confidential documents. one of my colleagues tweeted
5:09 pm
this, quote, chairman grassley -- i'm not going to name this colleague because there's no point in embarrassing anybody to make a very strong point here about howry particular lus -- how ridiculous some of this art has come. -- art has come. quote, grassley deemed kavanaugh's records committee confidential. penalty for release could include expulsion from the senate which hasn't happened since the civil war since disloyalty to the union. g.o.p. is going that far to keep things secret. end of quote. i think all of my colleagues see the absurdity of that tweet. now that person is acting like the committee has never received
5:10 pm
committee confidential documents before. it's common practice, and it happened in previous supreme court nominees, even under democratic chairmen. so, to sum up, it is so regretful that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have politicized this process so much but also at the same time have short memories. i yield the floor. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader.
5:11 pm
mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that my fellow john price, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: mr. president, i rise to speak about the defense appropriations bill, con lating senators shelby p and others for putting together a very good product. for my home state it will give installations such as peterson, buckley, the air force academy, fort carson in colorado springs
5:12 pm
and beyond. this provides the first sig can't pay raise for soldiers, sailors, air mern and marines for -- in over ten years. in the -- i want to highlight several provisions related to these areas. the funding provides $356 million in additional funding to expand and accelerate the cyber defense including research efforts and $116 million in missile defense agency cybersecurity enhancements. legislation will support critical cybersecurity programs, including d.i.x. and army futures commands in austin, texas. the bill focuses on our ability to modernize not only what we might use in con dplict but also how conflict could be waged through technology. through a developed equipped cybercommand, we will be funded with new technology but with new
5:13 pm
titles and authorities to disrupt and destroy cyberattacks on our infrastructure and economy. as our force evolves and changes, cybercommand will be a vital stakeholder in our defense. there is the administration's concept of a free and open indo-pacific by fully funding our facilities in the u.s. pacific commands with partner nations. i'm pleased the bill includes funds to support activities with the pacific island nations. these nations are at risk of falling under more and more clines influence and it is important for the united states to have an active leadership role. countering china's rise represents a great challenge for u.s. national security, but it is a challenge we must rise to meet. according to the national security strategy released in december, for decades u.s. policy was rooted in the belief that support for china's rise and integration into the
5:14 pm
post-war international order would liablize china. china expanded its power at the expense of sovereignty to others. according to the 2018 national defense strategy, china and russia wants to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model. and, according to department of defense on chinese military power released just last week, china's military modernization targets capabilities with the potential to degrade core u.s. operational and technological advantages. they acquired military technologies including cyber theft and the exploitation of private chinese nationals these tolings. i'm pleased the administration is taking steps to rebuild our military and stand up to china. i'm leading a bipartisan effort in the senate called the asia
5:15 pm
reassurance act. i expect the senate foreign relations committee will mark it up in september, i ask my colleagues to cosponsor this effort. we know that china will test u.s. resolve. on monday, we heard that el salvador under chinese pressure has decided to sever diplomatic ties with taiwan in favor of beijing. this is an outrageous and unwarranted move for el salvador which has enjoyed official relations with the republic of china since 1933. in response, i have introduced an amendment with senator rubio to this legislation that will restrict u.s. funds to the government of el salvador, and it's our sincere hope that this amendment will send a direct message to taiwan's allies that the united states will use every tool to support taiwan standing on the international stage, and we will stand up together to china's bullying tactics around the world. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader.
5:18 pm
mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i move to executive session to consider calendar number 994. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services, lynn a. johnson of colorado to be assistant secretary for family support. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 lynn a. johnson of colorado to be assistant secretary for family support, department of health and human services, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent
5:19 pm
the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 910. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal reserve system, richard clarita of connecticut to be vice chairman of the board of governors. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 richard clarita of connecticut to be vice chairman
5:20 pm
of the board of governors of the federal reserve system for a term of four years, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 911. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal reserve system, richard clata of connecticut to be a member of the board of governors. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. 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
5:21 pm
nomination of richard clarita of connecticut to be a member of the federal reserve system for a term -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 783. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, joseph h. hunt of maryland to be an assistant attorney general. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 joseph h. hunt of
5:22 pm
maryland to be an assistant attorney general, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 720. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of treasury, isabel marie keenan patelunas of pennsylvania to be tnn assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in
5:23 pm
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 isabel marie keenan patelunas of pennsylvania to be assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis, department of the treasury, signed by 17 senators as follow- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 633. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, terry fitzgerald moorer of alabama to be united states district judge for the southern district of alabama. mr. mcconnell: i send a
5:24 pm
cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 terry moorer of alabama to be united states district judge for the southern district of alabama, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 635. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, r. stan baker of georgia to be united states district judge for the southern district of georgia. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk
5:25 pm
will report the motion. 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 r. stan baker of georgia to be united states district judge for the southern district of georgia, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 636. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, charles barnes goodwin of oklahoma to be united states district judge for the western district of oklahoma. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk.
5:26 pm
the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 charles goodwin of oklahoma, to be united states district judge for the western district of oklahoma, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 674. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, barry w. ashe of louisiana, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk.
5:27 pm
the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 barry ashe of louisiana to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 676. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, james r. sweeney, ii, of indiana, to be united states district judge for the southern district of indiana. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion.
5:28 pm
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 james sweeney of indiana to be united states district judge for the southern district of indiana, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 692. thethe presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, susan paradise baxter of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we,
5:29 pm
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 susan baxter of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 693. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. any opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, marilyn jean horan of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion.
5:30 pm
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 marilyn horan of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider::-of-732. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those if favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it pped the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to the clerk will report the nomination clerk nomination, the judiciary, william f. jung of floor today to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions
5:31 pm
of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of william jung of floor today to be united states district judge for the middle district of floor today signed by 17 senators as followed. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the motion, all those if favor day aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to consider 779. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the proceedings is agreed to the qlerveg will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, dominick with him lanza of arizona for be united states district judge for the district of arizona. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance r dance with the broke visions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a three
5:32 pm
debate on the nomination of dwom nick lanza of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived move without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 782. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, charles j. williams of iowa to be united states district judge for the northern district of iowa. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 debit on the nomination of charles williams
5:33 pm
of iowa to be united states district judge for the northern district of iowa signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reeling of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to x, tif session to consider -- executive session to consider 838. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it of the motion is agreed to the clerk will report the nomination. the presiding officer: nomination, the judiciary, robert r. summerheys of louisiana to be united states district judge for the western district of louisiana. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 robert summerheys of louisiana to be united states district judge for the western
5:34 pm
district of louisiana signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived prove without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. the ayes appear to have it. the the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 893. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, alan d. albright of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions rural 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move bring to a close debate on the nomination of alan albright of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas signed by 17 senators as follows.
5:35 pm
mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma lash e-- owe oklahoma. lar mr. lash -- had coordinated attack to try to influence our election. this week earlier, conservative think tanks, republican groups and senate official sites were targeted by russian hackers. mr. lankford: today democratic national committee just detected and announced what it believing -- believes was a sophisticated attack to try to hack into its database system, very similar to
5:36 pm
the attack senator hillary in-- hillary clinton's campaign. then today we postponed in the senate a committee debating election security. clearly, states like russia, iran, north korea, and others are trying to influence our elections that demonstrated the capability, the willingness, the intenchts to -- intent to come after us to try to influence us. they're looking for vulnerabilities in states, not necessarily to pick one candidate over another but to s sow chaos and use information against us. these same nation states are also pursuing independent hackers, not necessarily working for their government at all, just individual hackers that are willing to be hired out to be able to do whatever these nation states want them to do or to be able to hack in and get information and then sell that information to a nation state that might be interested in it.
5:37 pm
election security is not a partisan issue. it is a democracy issue and we should take the security of our next election seriously just like we take the security of our infrastructure seriously, our banking system seriously, our power and electrical grid, our water, those are areas that need to be secured. and i am disappointed there was yet another delay in working through that on election security. but i do appreciate the work of the rules committee and what they're doing to continue to refine this. and i do anticipate in the days ahead we will have a hearing on this issue and it will move to this floor for final passage. the bill that's being debated is pretty straightforward. it requires voter verified paper audit trails. in order to receive any kind of federal funding, they've got to be able to some way to audit their elections, requiring that all states that take federal money, that help them in their election systems can also conduct post audit election
5:38 pm
audits or post-election audits that are determined by the state. there's not a reason for the federal government to tell states how to do that. that is a unique role of the states and requiring communication between the states and federal government on election infrastructure breaches. there are ways to be able to do that to honor the state's authority to be able to run their elections but still understand we have vulnerablability nationwide if any one state is vulnerable. i've heard the arguments on the bill and information sharing but i would say that it's clear that an attack on any one state, on any one county could jeopardize the integrate of -- integrity of our nation's election security system. i've heard that states may not need to conduct their own post post-audits. it's been a trust us, things will work out final. the challenge i have with that is that five states in the united states right now and as of this election coming up in november will not be able to
5:39 pm
even do a post-audit election on their system, five states. nine additional states have some counties within their state that cannot do a post-election audit. so the problem with trust me is there's no way to be able to verify on the back side. i only get trust me but no verification. the bill that's coming through on the secure election act that myself and amy klobuchar from minnesota are working so hard to be able to work through the system allows the states to run their own election system, allows for the flexibility of the states that they need and the vendors they choose to use and all the details they choose to do in that but it requires a simple ability to be able to audit their systems after it's over so no nation-state, no group of hackers can stay we did and there's no way to be able to prove them wrong. audits are not recounts. audits just give voters confidence that the vote that they cost was -- they cast was
5:40 pm
counted. to be clear, we have -- haven't advanced a tremendous amount since the 2016 time period. the department of homeland security has done a lot to be able to protect our system. states have stepped up significantly to be able to protect their systems. but there's more to go. d.h.s. has security clearances for election officials or the capability to do immediate security conversations with every single state in the united states. that's important because in 2016, that didn't occur. in the communication about the threat that was coming at the united states couldn't be communicated to the states sometimes for month, sometimes for over a year. that's been fixed. there's been cyber assistance that's been offered to every single state and many of those states have taken it where d.h.s. has been able to work with individual states to be able to check their systems, make sure it's secure, and to be able to provide a filter to be able to filter out malicious hackers on top of their already consistent filters that are there, to provide kind of a belt
5:41 pm
and suspenders protection for their election systems. d.h.s. has already given priority to any request from any state that asks for election systems where they literally take people off other aassignments and be to believe to get those individuals to election officials for any state that asks for it and all requests from every state that has asked for additional assistance has been fulfilled. they've also run d.h.s., that is has run recently what they call a tabletop the vote 2018. they were running a national cyber exercise to be able to practice how would this work, what would happen, what vulnerabilities are there. and they got tremendous feedback from the states as they did the exercise, working with the states that would participate with them and finding out where they could share information. they set up a tremendous resource for election day itself to be able to watch out for malicious attacks during election day and the runup to the election and to make sure they have rapid communication. none of that existed in 2016.
5:42 pm
that's real progress. but we've got to get some of these legislative solutions as well in place. at the end of the day, states are going to control their elections, but i don't expect every state in the united states to protect themselves against a foreign attack. that is the responsibility of the federal government to be able to step in and to be able to help pocket our systems. so we're trying to hit this balance with the secure elections act. states to run their elections. federal government does their part. and the american people do their part by stepping up to be able to vote with confidence to know that their vote actually counts. congress needs to pass this legislation. we need to move it across the committee line and across this floor because the election issues that we're facing right now are not going away and they're not getting easier. states could use our help. it's about time we step up and do it. with that i yield the floor.
5:43 pm
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to thank senator whitehouse for his unwavering commitment to elevating the urgent need for all of us to take action on climate change. since 2012, senator whitehouse has given over 200 speeches on climate change. faithfully, passionately, intellectually warning us of what is to come if we don't get our act together. so thank you, senator whitehouse. i am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the fight to save this earth. this is on us, on all of us. the facts are in. the science is irrefutable. climate change is real. it's real and it's happening every single day all around us. it's not made up. it's not a chinese hoax. it is the most existential threat our word has ever known
5:44 pm
and we're not doing enough to stop it. that's why i wanted to be here tonight to stand with my friend and my colleague senator white howtion -- white -- senator whitehouse to ring the alarm. it's time to wake up. as i think of the cons queens of inaction -- consequences of inaction, i can't help reflect on the financial crisis that nearly destroyed our economy ten years ago. millions of hardworking people lost their jobs. millions lost their homes and millions lost their savings. the financial crisis nearly tore apart the global economy for a whole variety of reasons, but failure to act on credible, verifiable data is what nearly destroyed our economy. it didn't have to happen. we could have prevented it. yet here we are again ignoring clear and blatant warnings of another financial disaster in the making. the evidence is mounting every
5:45 pm
single day. fires blazing out of control. extreme storms and hurricanes, rising sea levels, warming oceans. our planet is in danger which means our economy is in danger. recent data show that a major climate-related disaster could trigger a global financial crisis the likes of which our economy has never seen. now, i don't say that to predict some kind of doomsday disaster. this is a real and present threat to our global economy, and here's why. the driving cause of climate change is emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from humans burning fossil fuels. we're causing this every day. scientists estimate that humans can only burn so much more carbon before causing a global temperature rise of two degrees. a two-degree rise in
5:46 pm
temperatures would be devastating, rising sea levels, droughts, famine. but as of today, the worldwide oil and gas industry has carbon reserves that already far exceed the amount of carbon we can burn to stay under the two-degree temperature rise. so what does that actually mean? all these carbon resources will become less and less valuable as the environmental costs of burning carbon become more and more severe. that will devastate the global coal, oil, and gas industries. one estimate is that 82% of all coal reserves, 79% of global gas reserves, and 33% of global oil reserves could go unused. some experts predict that we will cause the value of fossil
5:47 pm
fuel companies to be cut in half, with the u.s. potentially losing its entire oil and gas industry. that could make the 2008 financial crisis look like a walk in the park. that's what's at stake for our global system. what about here at home? well, here's a quote. listen to this one. rising sea levels and spreading floodplains appear likely to destroy billions of dollars in property and to displace millions of people. the economic losses and social disruptions may happen gradually, but they are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and the great recession. who wrote that? freddie mack, the government-sponsored company responsible for buying millions of mortgages every year. that's not some partisan view. that is a cold-eyed assessment
5:48 pm
of the likely damage that climate change will cause to our economy and to our citizens. another recent study conducted by the union of concerned scientists found that over the next 30 years, 311,000 homes are in danger of being flooded every two weeks. 311,000. that means more than half a million homes could have their homes inundated with water multiple times every single month. think about the financial toll that constant flooding will take on these families and the homes -- well, after being bombarded with saltwater over and over again, a coastal property meltdown would be inevitable. but here's what gives me comfort and why i'm inspired to work
5:49 pm
with senator whitehouse and why i'm inspired by his work and why i had to be here tonight. we can prevent this crisis, but only if we act. it's going to take public-private partnerships, c.e.o.'s, and members of congress working together to prepare for the worst, and that means companies need to begin including the risk of climate change into their investment and risk management practices. climate change can be an economic opportunity if we act boldly and decisively, which is something i know senator whitehouse will address shortly. but if we fail to act, it will be a financial catastrophe as well as an environmental catastrophe. it will put the 2008 financial crisis to shame. we know it's coming. we need the political will to do something about it.
5:50 pm
mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am so grateful to join my colleague, senator warren, today to discuss the financial and economic risks posed by climate change. you have just heard the senator from my neighboring state of massachusetts lay how the a powerful case -- lay out a powerful case. given the gravity of these risks and given our recent experience of the 2008 financial crisis, we should be doing everything we can to prevent another economic meltdown. we know exactly what we need to do to mitigate these economic threats. we need to transition from polluting fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy and we can do this simply by giving renewables
5:51 pm
a fair market chance against the gigantic public subsidies on which the fossil fuel industry floats. put a price on carbon emissions so the price of the polluting product reflects its pollution costs to society. that's the economics 101 answer. the problem is that fossil fuel behemoths are desperate to duck the costs of their pollution. they want to protect this massive market failure. why do you suppose they are the biggest special interest political force in the world? to do that work? lack over in the house where just recently -- look over in the house where just recently an army of fossil fuel lobbyists and front groups pushed through an industry-scripted resolution
5:52 pm
declaring falsely that pricing carbon would be bad for the american economy. all but eight house republicans voted the way the industry instructed. for a resolution that was, for them, politically correct in a polluter-obedient kind of way but was factually false. today in my 217th time to wake up climate speech, i'm going to relate recent testimony of a respected economics professor, a nobel prize-winning economics professor, joseph stiglitz. unlike all that cheap politically canary around the house resolution, professor stiglitz's report was presented under oath and subject to cross-examination. fat chance the climatedonners ever let themselves get
5:53 pm
cross-examined under oath. truth is kryptonite for them. well, the report came out in julianna v. united states, a case where the plaintiffs are children suing the united states government for violating their constitutional right through a knowing failure to protect them from the costs of unlimited carbon emissions. here's what stiglitz's testimony states. the u.s. government's continuing support and perpetuation of a national fossil fuel-based energy system and continuing delay in addressing climate change is saddling and will continue to saddle youth plaintiffs with an enormous cost burden, as well as tremendous risks. well, obviously when stiglitzs talks about youth plaintiffs, his testimony actually covers all the children and future generations who will bear the
5:54 pm
terrible foreseeable costs of climate havoc. in particular, stiglitz notes that, and i quote, rising sea levels will lead to massive reductions in property value, just as senator warren and freddie mac have warned. and that children in future generations will have to bear the enormous cost of relocating the people and infrastructure that are now on this inundated land. of all places, the state of kentucky has a report warning that its population might rise because people will have to flee coastal states. even the leader's own state recognizes this coastal problem. this testimony echos other warnings that i have related in recent speeches about this looming coastal property value crash, warnings we hear from
5:55 pm
sources as diverse as freddie mac, as the union of concerned scientists through insurance trade publications and now this nobel prize-winning economist. and peer-reviewed research shows a gap emerging between coastal and inland property values, which is what you would expect as an early warning signal. stiglitz's report, however, isn't gloom and doom. it actually shows economic gains result from a wise transition to sustainable energy sources. stiglitz writes, retrofitting the global economy for climate change would help to restore aggregate demand and growth. climate policies, if well-designed and implemented, are consistent with growth, development, and poverty reduction. the transition to a low-carbon economy is potentially a
5:56 pm
powerful, attractive, and sustainable growth story, he said. marked by higher resilience, more innovation, more livable cities, robust agriculture, and stronger ecosystems. think about that. the fossil fuel industry and its phony front groups have cooked up a phony hobgoblin of economic harm, which just so happens to protect the industry they serve at the expense of everyone else. here's a nobel prize-winning economist telling us that shifting to renewable energy will actually help us grow the economy. the need for this transition is also echoed in the warnings that i've spoken about and that senator warren just spoke so
5:57 pm
eloquently about of a carbon bubble. -- and crash. so why is it that the clean energy economy grows? same reason the economy grew when we went from horse-and-buggy to automobile or landline to cell phones. the key word is innovation. as professor stiglitz says, we get more innovation as we manage this transition. renewable energy, electric cars, battery storage, carbon capture, energy efficiency, low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels. these are technologies. future, promising millions of great jobs. the question -- the question is whether these will be american technologies and american jobs or whether china, germany, japan, and other countries will win the transition to a low-carbon economy.
5:58 pm
growth won't just come from new jobs. it will come from lower costs. stiglitzs notes this. many -- i'm quoting him here -- many energy efficiency technologies actually have a negative cost to implement. now, you got to be an economist to use the phrase "negative cost." negative cost, obviouslyification is economic economicese for "that's a good thing." the reverse case is the trump administration's standard to frees fuel standards for cars. it will cost american consumers hundreds of billions of dollars more at the pump. no surprise all that extra cost for consumers goes to big oil which has the trump administration obedient lit in its pocket. stiglitz's testimony estimates the total benefits to the u.s. economy from shifting away from
5:59 pm
fossil energy sources at around $1 trillion by 2050, $1 trillion by 2050. like i said, a trillion-dollar negative cost. it is a good thing. it is a really good thing. and if we weren't completely in tow to the fossil fuel industry around here, we would be striving for it. stiglitz recommends the policies to get us to that low-carbon economy. first he says we must put a price on carbon. he testifies that putting a price on carbon could all by itself be beneficial to the economy. he says, a carbon tax could substitute for other more distortion nature -- distortionary taxes. if governmented made such a substitution the aggregate cost of curtailing carbon emissions could even be less than zero,
6:00 pm
providing net benefits to the economy. second, he testifies that we must end the enormous, gigantic subsidies we grant at that the ghoul industry. here's what he says. the full amount of subsidies in to the fossil fuel industry has been estimated at nearly $700 billion per year. morning half of the federal government's -- more than half of the federal government's forecasted deficit for the next fiscal year eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies implicit and explicit, many of which go to large corporations, could therefore both curtail fossil fuel production through forcing companies to bear more of the true costs of fossil fuel production and substantially reduce our national deficit in one fell swoop. for the record, stiglitz adds that, and i quote him here,
6:01 pm
equity would also be improved with corporations paying more and individuals such as youth plaintiffs and affected children benefiting. of course around here corporate interests get better service than the american people, so that observation probably won't count for much, but there it is. there's one last bit of stiglitz's testimony that's important. i quote again: the more time that passes, the more expensive it becomes to address climate change. end quote. time is not our friend. this doesn't get better or go away. every day that we delay is a missed opportunity. every day that we delay bears a cost. and we have been delaying -- we're good at that -- for decades.
6:02 pm
james hansen appeared before this body three decades ago to sound the alarm in a hearing chaired by senator chafee. stiglitz cites a 40-year-old report by president carter that subsidies to the fossil fuel industry were stifling competition from solar. for decades the fossil fuel industry has jerked congress' chain to keep anything from happening. even now their mischief is visible in the hobgoblin about economic harm. and, by the way, it's not just nobel prize winning economist joseph stiglitz who says that pricing carbon emissions would be a good thing. economists across the political spectrum agree. just last month economic researchers at columbia university found that even if you only look at the pure
6:03 pm
economic effects, a carbon fee is a winner. here's a $5 per ton carbon fee and here's a $75 per ton carbon fee. and both show growth compared to the status quo in the economy. you have to roll them back through the payroll tax, which is something we can do to see this added growth effect from a carbon fee. and remember, this growth, that's only the tax effects. this doesn't count the health benefits of a cleaner planet. this doesn't count the environmental benefits of a healthier planet. both are huge. they're not even counted here. this is just the tax effects. these carbon pricing ideas are a
6:04 pm
winner on their own, and it becomes a win-win-win when you add the environmental and health benefits. so who are we going to believe? front groups paid by the fossil fuel industry? if there were olympic medals in having a conflict of interest, these phonies would take the gold. unfortunately you'd have to hose off the medals platform afterwards. on the other side you have actual experts, honest experts, the ones cited by senator warren, the economist i mentioned here today, and many others who all agree. they are all saying that we need to act now. they are all telling us that failure to act puts us in harm's way for serious economic
6:05 pm
disruption. they are all telling us that pricing carbon and ending fossil fuel subsidies will actually be a boon to the economy. our choice is clear. going with the corrupt guys is not a good look. not when the day of reckoning comes. and warnings are more and more widespread and clear that a day of reckoning draws nigh. so if you want, go with the oddballs and the fossil fuel flunkies, not the nobel prize winners. go with the scripted disinformation, not the sworn testimony. go with the industry protecting a $700 billion subsidy, not the actual scientists. and good luck looking your
6:10 pm
a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i don't think we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate is not in quorum call. mr. casey: thank you, 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 come to the floor tonight to spend a couple of minutes talking about the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. we know that the debate has been engaged now for a number of weeks and that the american people are part of that debate. i've already expressed my views about the process that led to his nomination. i have very strong views about it. i think it was a corrupt bargain between at least two, if not the only two far-right organizations and the administration to choose from a list of only 25
6:11 pm
individuals to serve on the supreme court. in other words, if you're not on the list of 25 chosen by those groups, or at least certainly ratified by those groups, you cannot be nominated to the supreme court. but tonight i'm here to talk about a different set of questions. one is more specific and one is broader. both are important. i'll deal with the broader question at some length, but i'll raise the more specific question first. and that's the question of a particular aspect of the judge's record. i happen to serve as the ranking member of the senate special committee on aging, and i'm alarmed at some of the judge's opinions regarding older americans and americans with disabilities. i'll be walking through some of those cases at a different time,
6:12 pm
but i have a series of questions that i think are important to have answers to as it relates to his views on, and the potential opinions that he would write that affect older americans and individuals with disabilities. because there has been a failure so far to turn over records of his tenure in the white house, documents that some believe number in the millions of pages, it's very difficult to ascertain or even to formulate questions that relate to these, just these two topics, among many, the two topics being what are views on americans with disabilities and the laws that protect americans with disabilities? and of course what happens -- or what are his views on programs and policies that relate to
6:13 pm
older americans. today i've written to chairman grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee and ranking member feinstein to demand that the judiciary committee obtain and share with me and my staff all documents related to older adults and people with disabilities. the judiciary committee is attempting to move forward with judge kavanaugh's hearing before, before we have seen and had a chance to review his entire record. without judge kavanaugh's full record to review and without all the documents being made available to the committee and, therefore, to the senate, no senator can fulfill his or her constitutional duty to provide meaningful advice and consent about this nominee for the highest court in the land and i
6:14 pm
would argue the most powerful, or at least the most important court in the world. this duty could not be more important than it is at this moment. yesterday, as so many americans know, was a very sad day for the country, one of the saddest days in the history of our republic for two reasons. the president's former attorney michael cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws at the president's direction, according to his statement under oath in open court. that statement of mr. cohen. meanwhile paul manafort, the president's campaign manager, was convicted by a jury on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. why is that relevant to this discussion about the supreme court? i think it's pretty simple. serious crimes have been committed by close associates of
6:15 pm
the president. that president has now nominated judge kavanaugh to sit on our highest court, and that particular nominee, judge kavanaugh, has views on executive power and the power of any president to take action. these views must be thoroughly reviewed. that takes not just a review of the -- the record that we have now. i would argue that would fully examine those truce, you have to look at his full record. how can any senator, how can even the judiciary committee do that kind of review, conduct that kind of thorough review when you might have literally millions of pages of documents that are not being made available to the judiciary committee and by extension to the senate itself. i don't know how you can complete that kind of an inquiry just on those questions, questions of the power of the
6:16 pm
president, questions on executive power more broadly. so because of what happened yesterday, we are now in uncharted waters, probably territory that very few americans have ever walked through. i don't want to make historical comparisons because they are never entirely accurate, but i think it's safe to say we are in uncharted territory. so under these circumstances, it is more important than ever that our courts, up to and including the supreme court, act as independent arbiters in our democracy. any supreme court nominee, of course, warrants close, careful, and thorough scrutiny. in this case, this nominee, whose views on executive power i would argue are extreme and a nominee who has questioned whether the president can be
6:17 pm
subpoenaed, of course that nominee in this context but even outside this context should be the subject of thorough examination, and because of what happened yesterday should receive the most substantial, the toughest scrutiny on a range of questions but in particular those that relate to executive power. i will quote just a few lines from a 1998 law review article written by judge kavanaugh. he said, and i'm quoting, congress should give back to the president the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is out to get him, unquote. he went on to say later, quote, the president should have absolute discretion whether and when to appoint an independent counsel, unquote. so that's just one, one brief
6:18 pm
reference in one law review article. there are other examples we could cite. obviously, executive power, the power of the president generally but in particular the power of a president in the context of a -- an independent counsel will be now called special counsel being involved. so these questions are substantial, and we know that judge kavanaugh before he was, in fact, judge kavanaugh was a member of a prior administration where he served both as white house staff secretary and white house counsel. therein lies a lot of information if those documents about his time there where he assuredly would have expressed opinions on a range of questions
6:19 pm
, maybe a series of statements or evidence in the record about his views on executive power in addition to what he may have said in a speech or in a law review article or otherwise. so i believe it would be an abrogation of our constitutional responsibility to move forward on the kavanaugh nomination without his full, without his full record set forth for the judiciary committee before the hearing begins, and if there are millions of pages still to review, we should give judiciary committee members the time to review those documents, formulate questions and prepare for the hearing. there is no rule or no law that says this hearing has to begin the day after labor day or even a few days after labor day. i would think that the senate would want to have the full record or as close to the full record as possible before the committee -- before those
6:20 pm
hearings begin, especially because you have a particularly urgent set of circumstances or set of facts in light of what happened yesterday with two individuals in two different courts of law that could make as a live issue potentially these questions of the exercise of executive power and especially because you have a nominee that has expressed views on those issues. i don't think what i'm outlining in in any way unreasonable, and taking a few extra weeks to review that record should be the subject of bipartisan support. so i believe judge kavanaugh's full record must be made available for review. i also believe the senate must be given adequate opportunity to review it. i think because the facts and circumstances that are presented
6:21 pm
with this nominee, with this presidency and with this set of facts, the stakes could not be higher. we don't want to be finding out down the road in the midst of a confirmation hearing or even after the confirmation hearing or even after potentially a confirmation vote that there are documents in the record that were not brought to the full light of scrutiny that have a bearing on his views that relate to these fundamental issues of executive power. if a legislative branch of government -- in this case, the united states senate and in particular the judiciary committee -- if the legislative branch of government in that circumstance doesn't discharge its duty to obtain and to review and then to formulate questions about issues so fundamental as
6:22 pm
executive power and the power of the president, especially in the context of a special counsel investigation, i'm not sure what the role of the senate would be in the absence of that kind of review. so i think this is fundamental. it has nothing to do with a point of view or a party or a position. this is fundamental to the -- the process of having a -- a full review of the record. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
6:50 pm
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 514, s. 2946.
6:51 pm
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 514, s. 2946, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to confirm the meaning of the terms being a of war and -- act of war and blocked asset and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended, is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on banking be discharged from further
6:52 pm
consideration of s. 2666 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 5's. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 266, a bill to award the congressional gold medal to anwar sadat in he can are in addition of his historic achievements and courageous contributions to peace in the middle east. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. ifer officer is there further debate? the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 283, s. 1322.
6:53 pm
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 283, s. 1322, a bill to establish the american fisheries advisory committee and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the sullivan substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of s. 1142 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1142, a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the murkowski
6:54 pm
amendment at the desk be agreed, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the message from the house to accompany s. 899. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message from the house. the clerk: resolved, that the bill from the senate, s. 899, entitled an act to amend title 38, united states code, to ensure that the requirements that new feted employees who are veterans with service-connected disabilities with provided leave for purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disabilities apply to certain employees of the veterans health administration and for other purposes, do pass with amendments. the presiding officer: i -- mr. mcconnell: i move to concur in the house amendment and i ask that the motions be agreed 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 unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of
6:55 pm
calendar number 466, h.r. 2147. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 466, h.r. 2147, an act to require the secretary of veterans affairs to hire additional veterans justice outreach specialists and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: the ask unanimous consent the bill be considered a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 615 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 615, horn honoring the life and legacy of a aretha franklin aretha. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening
6:56 pm
action or debate. 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 9:30 a.m. thursday, ology 23. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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 johnson nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: will the senator suspend?
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
murkowski amendment be agreed -- amendment be agreed to the order in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the under the previous order, the >> the u.s. senate today working on amendments to an $857 billion federal spending package that contains the two largest appropriations bills for 2019, funding defense, labor, hhs and education. more debate tomorrow with the final passage vote expected by the end of the week. live coverage here on c-span2. highlights from the 2018 resurgent gathering in austin, texas, organized by conservative blogger and radio host erick erickson. washington examiner reporter sleeve that zito also spoke about the populist movement in the 2016 election and how she knew president trump would win
7:01 pm
the presidency. >> so i'm really excited. i was telling her in the green room that i wanted to invite her to come, but i didn't want to invite her to come because i know she's really busy, and she's flying in today to hang out with us and then literally has to fly back home, because she's got an event tomorrow she has to be at. so she came in just a couple hours ago and will leave again. we're not going to have an opportunity to do the cooking show that i want to do with her one day. if you have not read the red revolt, i had to the admit i haven't read it yet because i'm doing ph.d. work, i haven't had time for normal books, but i intend to read it. i have read all about it, and i've been reading her for years. folks, i'm sure you have, please well some selena zeto. [applause] we were having this discussion off stage about is it
142 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on