unborn until medical viability. i -- where the agree with about i don't think that's part of our history. so fill in the blanks get what are the limits of people in your business applying that concept to almost anything that you think to be liberty? >> that is the concern that some have expressed about the concept of unenumerated rights. >> here's the concern i have, that you have one word that has opened up the ability for five people to tell everybody elected in the country, you can't go there. that this is an off limits and the democratic process. whether you agree with roe v. wade or not, just think what couldwa happen -- >> the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh continues on our companion network c-span3.

c-span3. and online at c-span.org. you can listen with the free c-span radio app. we are on c-span2. will take you like to use senate pick senate members today schedule on a number of judicial nominees at 1:45 p.m. eastern and now to live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

o god, the father of light, today give our senators the light to guide them, the courage to sustain them, and the civility to unite them. give our lawmakers humility in prosperity and patience in adversity. provide them with a quiet awareness of your presence, sustaining them with your great power. lord, make us all grateful for the blessings you shower upon us each day. increase our faith, until we experience peace that flows like

a river in our hearts. we pray in your great name, amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 6, to 18. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable deb fischer, a senator from the state of nebraska, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: day two of judge brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearings proved to be a marathon session -- for 13 hours, judge kavanaugh was grilled by our colleagues on the judiciary committee. through that testing, the senate got to see exactly why the american bar association deemed this nominee to be unanimously well-qualified. that's the highest possible rating, a distinction many of our democratic colleagues in the past have called the gold standard. we saw precisely why he's earned

such praise from accomplished legal figures like lisa blatt, a self-described liberal and leading supreme court litigator, who proudly introduced judge kavanaugh before the committee, and neal katyal, the obama administration solicitor general, who said, quote, it is very hard for anyone who's worked with judge kavanaugh, appeared before him, to frankly say a bad word about him. judge kavanaugh was patient and professional, his answers showed total command of everything from the fine details of case law to the principles upon which our founders built the constitution. back in july, one of judge kavanaugh's former yale law school professors explained that he is, quote, an avid consumer of legal scholarship. he reads and learns. well, it certainly shows, and judge kavanaugh widely -- is

widely acclaimed -- and judge kavanaugh's wide a claimed temperament was on full display. he gave expansive, thoughtful answers while also respecting the independence of the judiciary. even as some. our democratic colleagues seem to forget -- seemed to forget that we're examining a potential supreme court justice and not interviewing a super-legislator that will be writing his own policy preferences into law. judge kavanaugh remained gracious and spoke at length about his past year's prudence and his understanding of the role judges play in our republic. it was striking to contrast judge kavanaugh's poise on the one hand and professionalism with the continue unhinged -- literally unhinged antics of the far left, which once again resorted to yelling and screaming and interrupting the hearing with nonsensical

protests. the capitol police deserve all of our gratitude for keeping order, as does chairman grassley for keeping the proceedings moving smoothly. perhaps -- perhaps, madam president, it's finally dawning on the far left that judge kavanaugh is an impressive mainstream and brilliant nominee who almost any objective observer would agree is more than qualified to serve on the supreme court. maybe that's why they're resorting to futile attempts to disrupt the proceedings. maybe that's why no fewer than 66 individuals were removed from the hearing room for interruptions. well, i'll be perfectly clear

about this -- hysterical students are not going to stop the united states senate from completing its business. there is no heckler's veto here. i look forward to more excellent testimony from judge kavanaugh today. i want to say a few words about a loyal and valuable public servant as he reefs a remarkable -- as he reaches a remarkable milestone. over the past 50 years, members of congress have come and they have gone. but all the while dr. walter olizak has been on hand at the library of congress to answer members' and staffs' toughest

questions about the inner workings of american government. walter arrived in washington in the summer of 1968 from upstate new york. he signed on with the legislative reference service, now the congressional research service, and has been serving ever since. over five decades walter has grown into an institution unto himself. he is not only the longest-serving c.r.s. team member but also a dedicated and integral part of its operations, while also finding time to teach and lecture on the side. alan frumin, the former senate parliamentarian, was actually one of walter's students at coal debate university -- colgate

university years ago. if there's anything that walter doesn't know, then that thing doesn't exist. the parliamentarian is usually the smartest one in the room so that's especially high praise. and walter has earned it. so today on behalf of the senate, i want to thank this scholar, author, internationally sought advisor and dedicateed steward of the united states congress. we congratulate him on his career thus far and look forward to continuing to work alongside him.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up it ten minutes each. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: pursuant to the order of august 28, at 1:45 p.m. today, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 693, 731, 778, 779, 782, 838, 839, and 893, as under the previous order.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: today, madam president -- i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, today the senate judiciary committee continues its hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. during yesterday's session, the american people got to see a nominee who refused to answer even the most basic fundamental questions about his jurisprudence. they got to see a cover-up of judge kavanaugh's records, by himself and the republican members of the committee. when judge kavanaugh was asked

specific questions about important issues that might someday come before a court like women's reproductive freedom, he pleaded the need for independence and refused to answer. when democratic senators asked him hypothetical questions instead to avoid the possibility of a judge -- of the judge tipping his hand on a future case, then he said he wouldn't engage in hypotheticals. can't talk about specific cases. can't talk about general situations. he's ducking. he's hiding. judge kavanaugh was asked how he might view the constitutionality of a presidential subpoena arising from the mueller probe. he said he could not tip his hand about a potential issue before the court. asked then about the constitutionality of a presidential subpoena in general, he said he would not engage in a hypothetical. this is not a hypothetical

issue. this is a fundamental constitutional issue. madam president, there is no legal, ethical, or judicial reason for judge kavanaugh to avoid directly answering these questions unless he has something to hide. if the nominee can't answer questions about already decided cases, pending cases or hypothetical cases, honestly, what's there left to talk about? charity work and basketball? your favorite federalist paper? how does the nominee expect the senate and the public to evaluate him? he doesn't. he doesn't want it. his lifelong record as a hard right warrior, if he talked about it and talked about his views would rule him out, so he hides.

that should not happen when it comes to nominating one of the most powerful positions in american society. let me just mention a few topics judge kavanaugh ducked. judge kavanaugh would not expand or even revisit his views on presidential power. he already enumerated some in the minnesota law review article. as senator klobuchar pointed out, he's already talked about them publicly. why can't he elaborate? he had given his view on that one. very bad view. does he still hold it? nobody knows. judge kavanaugh could not assure the american people he would uphold the health care law, including protections for up to 130 million americans with preexisting conditions, protections that are under threat right now by a lawsuit in texas. he could not assure the american

people he would uphold the landmark decision in roe v. wade. he did repeat a view, which he reportedly shared with senator collins, that roe v. wade was settled precedent in the court, but as judge kavanaugh himself points out in a 2003 e-mail made public this morning, quote, i am not sure that all legal scholars refer to roe as settled law of the land at the supreme court level. since the court can always overrule its precedent and three current justices on the court would do so. that's an e-mail from judge brett kavanaugh -- from brett kavanaugh explaining that roe v. wade is only settled law until a majority of the court decides it isn't. since the time he wrote that e-mail, one more justice had joined the court likely to overturn roe. judge kavanaugh could be the

deciding vote. and he won't even talk about it. that is an issue that affects all americans. it is an issue that's so important to our jurisprudence. it is an absolute disgrace that a nominee for the supreme court refuses to talk about such a fundamental issue at the core of one of the great debates of american society and hides behind legal subterfuge, which e doesn't have to speak, verbal chicanery. i wonder why the republican majority labeled the e-mail about roe v. wade committee confidential until this morning. was that e-mail withheld for privacy reasons? no. national security reasons? no. it's ridiculous. the only explanation is that judge kavanaugh's record was being withheld for political

reasons. they don't want the american people to see his view. the american people knew that judge kavanaugh would decide against roe v. wade as it seems this e-mail feels he thinks he can, not bound by legal precedent if he changes his mind, if the court changes its mind. they would rise up and say don't put him on the bench. so instead, they hide the records. my republican colleagues set up an entire process to go around the nonpartisan national archives, and it appears that the purpose is to hide documents that might shed real light on judge kavanaugh's actual record. now, finally, a little late in the game, the truth is coming out, but this is the only --

this is only the tip of the archives. these are the only documents that have slipped through the republican filter. what else is hidden in judge kavanaugh's record? what else don't we know about the nominee? when did the republican majority decide that supreme court nominees should be like icebergn showing, while the real nominee lurks unseen under water and potentially dangerous? so i strongly support and commend the democrats on the judiciary committee in their efforts to make these confidential documents public. i stand with them. they did the right thing. the american people desire to see these documents. in this case, committee confidential is a complete

fiction, a subterfuge to avoid the american people knowing the real brett kavanaugh. the members of the committee should be proud -- sorry. the members of the committee should be praised, not chastised, for making these documents available. they had the right -- they did the right thing, and they had an obligation to do it. the republican members of the committee should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of themselves in participating in the administration and judge kavanaugh's cover-up of his record. the senate and the american people have a right to see the nominee's record, especially now

since the nominee appears unwilling to answer substantive questions about his views. whatever the rules may be of the senate, they should not be twisted to ensure partisan advantage and prevent transparency and openness. they should not be twisted to cover up the truth rather than reveal it. mr. president, there is so much at stake in this -- madam president, there is so much at stake in this supreme court nomination. will americans with preexisting conditions be able to get health care? will women be able to make private personal choices about their medical care? will lgbtq americans be able to marry whom they love? will every american's constitutional right to vote be protected? can the president of the united states be held accountable, especially at this time?

we know how much we need that. and yet, at every turn, the republican majority, the trump administration, and brett kavanaugh have prevented the senate and the american people from being truly able to vet a nominee who could affect the lives of americans for a generation. i yield the floor. mr. cotton: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i speak today in support of the nomination of dominic lanza to be a district judge for the district of arizona. dominic is my old friend and law school classmate, and may be

most importantly, intramural basketball teammate. when he was known as dom, or perhaps the dominator. now, i can't claim the credit for dominic's nomination. he has the highest qualifications, and his whole life has prepared him for this moment, to be a united states district judge. dom graduated with highest honors from dartmouth in 1998 where he was also an all-ivy league and academic all-america offensive lineman on the dartmouth football team. he received the bearer award for being the outstanding graduate of his class in achievement, character, and leadership. in law school together, he excelled, graduating with honors, serving as a member of the law review. he went on to clerk for judge pam rymer on the ninth circuit court of appeals. for five years, he worked in private practice with gibson,

dunn, and crutcher in their constitutional law practice and won awards for his pro bono work. for the last ten years, dom has served the people of arizona and the people of this country and the u.s. attorney's office for the district of arizona. as an assistant u.s. attorney, he prosecuted over 300 defendants for a wide variety of crimes including immigration offenses, drug trafficking and public corruption. he authored more than 20 appellate briefs and argued more than 11 cases in the ninth circuit court of appeals. from 2012 to 2015 he then served as chief of the district's financial crimes and public integrity section, and he now is the chief and executive assistant u.s. attorney, the number-two position, in the district where he oversees the phoenix office. dom said the most important thing he learned from his time in the u.s. attorney's office is the need to represent the facts and the law fairly and accurately to the court and

opposing counsel. he's also learning the necessity of treating everybody involved in the legal process from judges to jurors, court staff, opposing counsel and parties with courtesy, dignity, patience and respect. dom has volunteered in the courts works program in which students from at-risk schools perform simulated trials. and he's participated in the veterans court program, which provides increased support and guidance to federal criminal defendants who are veterans. dom participated in, completed and received the highest marks from senator mccain and senator flake's judicial nomination panel. he now has the support as well from senator jon kyl. i commend all three men for an outstanding selection. as i said, i can't take credit for dom's nomination, but i can perhaps add a little bit of perspective to the kind of judge he will be and the man i knew on

the basketball courts. dom was tough. if you were driving to the basket or fighting for a rebound, you did not want him in your way. dom was fair-minded. if he fouled an opposing player or knocked the ball out of bounds, you get no argument from him. he would admit that he had knocked it out of bounds or that he had committed the foul and the play would go on. dom was even tempered, something of a gentle giant. when something flared on the basketball courts in hemingway, as they retrospect did too often, and over silly matters, dom was a peacemaker, separating those who might otherwise be in an altercation. dom was a team player. when it was time for him to take the shot because that's what the team needed, that's what he would do. but he was just as happy to pass the ball off, to set a screen, to box out for a rebound. and dom was good natured.

competitive to be sure, but he understood that in the grand scheme of things, we are just a bunch of washed up high school and college athletes enjoying a few hours off from our studies. these are all traits that put him in the best position possible to deliver justice not only for the people of arizona, but for the people of the united states. everyone who comes before him is fortunate that dominic lanza will soon be a district judge. for 42 years, dominic has been known as dom or the dominator. but in just a few hours he will be known as your honor. few men by their character and by their lives better deserve that title than the dominator, dominic lanza. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. blunt: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, i want to speak for a few minutes about -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. blunt: i move we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i want to speak for a few minutes about the hearings going on today with judge brett

kavanaugh. i had a chance as you did to meet him a little over a month ago. it was clear from that conversation that he is clearly the best person available, in my view, to fill the vacancy left by justice anthony kennedy. his opening remarks this week, i think, gave great evidence to that. he said he described himself, quote, as a, he said a judge must be an umpire, a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy. he went on to say i do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. i am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. i am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. i am a pro-law judge. that ends the quote of that

comment he made describing himself. what does that mean to be a pro-law judge? it means that you see your job as the job of the judge is to look at the law and determine what the law says, whether that's the criminal law or the civil law. if you hire an attorney -- i'm not an attorney, but if you hire an attorney to give you advice on the civil law, the greatest benefit you can have of making a decision based on that advice is that judges at all levels, up to the supreme court, will look at the law as your hopefully good attorney did and say this is what this law means. if you make this decision based on what the law says, the courts in the united states of america will reach that same likely conclusion. your attorney might say the law is not clear on this issue, and that's a different thing. but the judge's job is not to

decide what's the right thing. the judge's job is not to decide what the law should say. the judge's job is not to decide what the people who wrote the constitution should have written or should have meant if they had known everything we know today. the judge's job is to look at the law and look at the constitution and decide that's what it said. now, nothing would be a better example of judge kavanaugh's philosophy than the 300 opinions he's issued as a judge. there's a lot of discussion about, well, there's not enough material out there. we haven't seen everything. we haven't seen everything that went through the white house when he was the staff secretary for president bush, bush 43, george w. bush. we haven't seen all that. of course that's not the case. there's plenty to be seen. in fact, there's more paperwork

available to look at from judge kavanaugh than for the last five supreme court judges put together. if you're looking for paper, you got paper. if you're looking for a judge's position, you have also got that. you've got 300 cases, some of which were appealed to the supreme court. 13 of his almost exact opinions -- and i think some of them were when he was in the minority on the circuit court bench -- became the opinion that the supreme court essentially adopted almost exactly as judge kavanaugh had written it. what we're trying do here is put somebody on the supreme court for a lifetime appointment, and this individual happens to be somebody who for 12 years has been on what is often described as the second-most important court in the country. why would the d.c. circuit -- that's the court of appeals for

the d.c. area -- why would the d.c. circuit be the second-most important court in the country? because the reason is because most of the cases that involve new federal law, that involve expansive federal law wind up right here. and judge kavanaugh for 12 years has been one of those judges. and believe me, if the supreme court had said over and over again when there's an appeal from the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh's opinion really makes no sense. or judge kavanaugh's opinion wasn't based on the law, the facts, and the constitution, we would have heard about that. 300 opinions, we would have heard about that if that would have been the case. and we have not heard about that. in fact, what we've heard over and over again is the job that the judge has done and the skill

he brings to the court. back to that idea that the judge's goal is not to decide what the judge would like the outcome to be, but what the law says, judge scalia, who was replaced last year by judge kavanaugh, judge scalia said the judge who always likes the results he reaches is not a good judge. the judge who always likes the result he reaches -- in fact, let me give you the exact quote. it says, is a bad judge. why would you be a bad judge if you always liked the goals you reached? the reason is you couldn't always be looking at the law, because the judge didn't write the law, the judge didn't come up with the law, the judge didn't even have to agree with the law. the judge's job is to decide what the law says. if you look at every case before you, if you evaluate it based on

the facts and apply the rule of law, you're going to come up with a conclusion that you won't always like. or you'll come up with a conclusion that the people that are in this case will understand where you came up with it because you came up with it based on the law and the facts. judge kavanaugh's credentials have been pretty -- have been discussed before. frankly, they're not being widely discussed this week because the hearing appears not to, at least half the time not to have much to do with judge kavanaugh at all. but whether there's enough paperwork to look at, whether a judge would have reached a different conclusion than he reached. but his qualifications are pretty significant. he's a graduate of yale law school. he clerked for three federal

judges, including the judge he's about to replace, and of course be a clerk for a judge means you graduated from law school. someone's looked at all the applicants to be their clerk and learned almost, kind of like graduate work after you graduated from law school and you're chosen to be that clerk. so that happened three times with judge kavanaugh, including justice kennedy. he clerked for justice kennedy alongside justice gorsuch. in 2006 president bush nominated him to serve on the d.c. court of appeals. in addition to that, since 2009 he's been a lecturer at the samuel wilkinson lecture in law at harvard law school. he was hired by justice kagan who before she was noted to the court by president obama was the

dean of harvard law school. have the interesting opportunity if he's confirmed to the court -- and i believe he will be -- to be sitting on the court with a judge nominated by justice obama but a judge who hired him to be a lecturer at yale law school. in addition to his legal career, he's really devoted himself to his community. he works coaching his daughter's basketball team with some pride. coach k, not always the coach k i would think of but the coach k the girls on the team think of when they think of coach k. he's a church volunteer, mentoring people at schools. he has been widely supported by those who have dealt with him, his classmates, his colleagues, his clerks, lawyers, legal scholars. this week he unanimously

received a well-qualified rating from the american bar association. this is the very highest rating they could give. it's unanimous. that's a pretty good signal that he must be well prepared as a lawyer to be a judge. the judiciary committee received letters from more than 140 law professors, more than 40 members of the supreme court bar, 34 of his former law clerks, 80 former harvard law students, 31 governors, and many more. his nomination isn't just widely supported, it's thoroughly vetted. 480,000 pages of documents, 300 cases of opinions he has written. i continue to believe that the supreme court is one of the long lasting and most important

legacies of a president. it's also one of the more than legacies of a senate. the constitution says the president nominates, but the senate advises and consents. and this is not just about advice. it's about becoming a partner in that process and becoming a member of the supreme court for as long as you live unless you decide to leave earlier than that. i'm disappointed that almost half of the senate announced that they wouldn't be for judge kavanaugh before he was -- his confirmation hearings, but at least a fourth of the senate anointed they wouldn't be for judge cough -- announced they wouldn't be for judge kavanaugh before he was nominated. a fourth of the senate was not going to be there. i think we find that a majority of the senate will be there later this month. i think we'll find a majority of the senate will be there before

the first monday in october, which is the day that the court starts to hear the cases for the coming year. i think judge kavanaugh is going to serve our country well, and i hope long, and i look forward to his confirmation later this month. and i would yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i come to the floor today to join the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, who will be joining me shortly, in urging our colleagues to avoid at completely unnecessary crisis and work together with us to get out our spending bills -- and get all of our spending bills signed into law. madam president, we should be able to do this. i'm very proud of the work that we've done so far. h. under the leadership of the chairman and vice chairman of

the appropriations committee, we've been able to negotiate and pass bills under regular order in a way we have been unable to do for years. we did this by rejecting the awful and counterproductive budget ideas from president trump and his administration and by pushing aside poison pill riders that would derail this process -- issues from tac on women's health care, higher education, patient protection, public schools, workers' rights and more. i am particularly proud that we were able to work together to negotiate and pass our l.h.s. bill through the full senate, something that has not been done in over a decade. our bill makes strong investments in families, in patients, students, workers and the middle class and rejects poison pill riders. it builds on the strong work we've done to increase access to child care and early learning and includes targeted funding to address the opioid epidemic, especially in our underserved areas. it includes significant new

resources to address the truly alarming issues of maternal mortality, to help us understand why so many women in our country are dying as a result of childbirth and pregnancy and prevent this from happening. madam president, the list goes on and on. we still have some work to do, but we should be able to get this done in the coming days, and i'm going 0 keep working until we do. however, madam president, i'm very concerned that president trump continues to threaten to refuse to sign these bills and shut down the government. just this week we saw new reports that he's talking once again about shutting down the government to try get the money for his ill-advised and wasteful border wall. madam president%, president trump told his voters that mexico was going to pay for his wall, so maybe he's talking about shutting down the mexican government so he can get money in mexican spending bills. but if he's talking about trying to get american taxpayers to foot the bill, well, that's not

going to happen. so, madam president, i hope republicans in congress continue to stand with us, stay the course on these bipartisan bills. we've come far in this process by putting families first and rejecting attempts to insert partisanship and poison pill riders in all of our spending bills. we need to get this done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, in the last few months, the senate has achieved record progress going through our appropriations bills. as we return from the labor day weekend, the senate has already passed nine of the 12 appropriations bills by overwhelming, bipartisan

margins. the -- in the appropriations committee -- the appropriations committee has reported the remaining three bills, again with bipartisan support. the end of the fiscal year is only a few short weeks away, but when you look at the record pace of our work here in the senate, there's no reason why we can't conference all of these bills with the house and send all nine to the president's desk before october 1. and it would be quite an accomplishment. it would show the american people that when it matters, congress can come together and do the job we were sent here to do. that includes passing responsible, thoughtful, well-considered appropriations bills on time and on budget. when i became vice chairman of appropriations, senator shelby chairman of the appropriations, we pledged each other and the united states senate we would move these bills in a way they

had not been moved in years. and we'd do it in a bipartisan way. so it is important that we conference all of the bills we pass in the senate so far. conference them and send them to the president's desk. you know, we can't just pick and choose and say, well, we'll do this one based on political expediency but not this one. that will get us rigx -- right back into the trap we were in in past years. we have to show the american people the senate actually knows how to do its work. the hard work has been done. we know the issues that we need to resolve. so now we need to bring these bills across the finish line. it may sound archaic, but we talk about minibus one that contains the energy and water development bill, the military and construction and veterans'

affairs, and the legislative branch appropriations. it provides much-needed resources for the support and care of our nation's veterans and their family members. it makes critical investments in our country's water infrastructure and energy programs. yesterday we held a public conference with the house of representatives on the first minibus, and i am pleased to report we made some significant progress. and one of the reasons we were successful in moving those to the senate is we have advanced appropriations bills that are free of poison pill policy riders from either the left or the right. in fact, my experience and the experience of many others tell us that's the only path to success in the senate where we rightfully need 60 votes to

advance legislation. it's the only path to success for conferencing the three minibus bills, and so i challenge house republicans who are in charge to come to terms with that reality. no one should mistake -- and i want to emphasize this -- no one should mistake democratic cooperation in the senate for a sign that we will support a conference report that contains poison pills. we will not. now, minibus two contains four appropriations bills -- agricultural, rural development, related agencies bill. the interior and environment related agencies bills, the financial services and general government bill, the transportation, housing and urban development bill. now, the house plans to appoint

conferees to this minibus later this afternoon. i would encourage the senate to follow soon thereafter. let me take these one by one. the agriculture appropriations bill is a win for farmers, families, and rural communities. every state in this nation has rural communities. the presiding officer does, i do, every state does. and farm economies that benefit from these important programs. from the clean water programs to investments in rural broadband, from rural housing assistance to agriculture research. this bill touches millions of americans all across the country. and in the wake of uncertainty and chaos caused by trade wars and unnecessary tariffs, our farmers and rural communities deserve better than inaction on appropriations. both the house and the senate have passed their investigators

of the bill, so let's just get to work, send the conference bill to the president. now, the same goes to the transportation, housing, and urban development bill. critical infrastructure investments across the nation, and we desperately need it. improving the nation's infrastructure was actually one of president trump's key campaign promises, but instead of proposing realistic solutions, he has criticized the very budget deal that made increases in infrastructure possible. instead of improving our infrastructure, he has proposed cutting -- not increasing, but cutting funding for infrastructure programs in his budget. so here we have an opportunity. let's invest in our country. started to address our crumbling bridges and roads. we should not kick the can down

the road. there is not a single senator here who can't point to needs in their bridges and roads in their state. and then we have the interior bill. it makes critical investments in programs. they help to ensure that we have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, funds our national parks and other public lands. the financial services bill funds regulatory agencies that u.s. citizens rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe business practices at the consumer products safety commission, the federal trade commission. i mentioned an interior bill. i think of the way senator patty murray has worked so hard on that with republicans and democrats, with all of us to put

together a bill that reflects the interests of all the country. now, we stand poised to deliver it to the american people. we have to get moving. we leave these important agencies to limp along with a continuing resolution that's unwise, that's unnecessary. we have laid the groundwork to finish these bills. now we just need the will to do it. so that brings me to minibus three. that contains defense appropriations bill and the labor, health and human services, and education bill. it funds our national security and many of our domestic priorities. it demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan budget agreement reached earlier this year. in this combination of bills, we see the priorities outlined in that agreement. we see them made into real policy to improve the lives of americans, not empty rhetoric, but real policy. and that is why so many

republicans and so many democrats voted for it. let's take the bipartisan budget deal. as a result of that, the senate defense appropriations bill provides the men and women of our armed forces the resources they need to carry out their missions effectively and safely. now, that's a goal that republicans and democrats share as americans. i know they are working with their house counterparts, we can produce a good bill for our troops and our nation. and then there is the senate labor, h.h.s., and education bill. look at the investments in health care and education in that. it increases funding for the national institutes of health by $5 billion over fiscal year 2017. n.i.h., national institutes of health. this is one of the treasures of america.

it backs our commitment to increase access to higher education. it increases college affordability spending by $2.3 billion over f.y. 2017. i was the first leahy -- my family came to vermont in the mid 1800's. i was the first leahy to get a college degree. my sister, the second. but when our children came along and our grandchildren, you never doubted, of course they would go to college. but that's not the same for an awful lot of people in this country, so we need this bill. it also increases access to child care by $3.2 billion over f.y. 2017. it investments nearly $3 billion to combat the opioid crisis that has plagued communities across this country. i feel badly that the house didn't follow the bipartisan efforts of the senate. the house produced a partisan

labor-h.h.s. bill that shortchanges programs for working america. it's loaded with poison pill riders that could never pass this body, from a tax of the affordable care act, restrictions on family planning. now, my staff, senator shelby's staff, several of us have been working days and weeks and weekends, and we will continue to do that to work out these differences. the differences are challenging. they are not insurmountable. but the reason we have to have a compromise, we have to get 60 votes in the senate, and there are not 60 votes for this hodgepodge of poison pills that the house has passed. i have said many times we have a strong national defense. we have to have a strong economy and educated and healthy citizenry and work force. the programs funding the labor,

h.h.s., and education appropriations bills are critical to doing that. deep ties run between defense and nondefense priorities and makes it fitting to package the two bills together, but they have to stay together if we're going to get them across the finish line by october 1. if they are decoupled, it's simple. it would destroy the bipartisan process we have worked so hard to establish, and it won't go through. now, it is possible the c.r. would be included in this bill so it's essential that it be bipartisan, free of any controversial matter. again, i would say why we have been so successful in the senate in moving this bill is because we have worked together. chairman shelby as chairman, myself as vice chairman, we have worked together. but republicans and democrats alike throughout on the appropriations committee have worked together. we have cooperated with each other. we have met over and over again.

each side has showed restraint in pursuing issues we felt strongly about because to do so would have imperiled the whole process. there are certain things i would like in this bill. there are certain things my republican counterparts might like in the bill, but we all knew the bill wouldn't go anywhere if we did together. it came together on those things that could pass, and each side had to trust the other, and they did so we could reach agreement to move these bills forward. so let's finish what we started the way we started, with bipartisanship and cooperation. that means the defense and labor, the h.h.s. bills remain together in one package. we can't drop one and finish the other. that's a nonstarter. everybody knows that. it also means that the senate must stand together, that the house -- if the house insists on producing partisan conference

reports containing poison pill riders because they can't pass. finally, it means we have to remain committed to finishing all three packages of the bills and send them to the president. so house republicans decide to delay minibus two until after the election and drop the labor, h.h.s., education bill from minibus three, it means that the $18 billion increase for defense assumed in the bipartisan budget agreement is an act, or the $18 billion increase of nondefense program be left in the dust. well, that's a clear violation of the bipartisan budget agreement based on parity between defense and nondefense, agreed to by both republicans and democrats, and i predict it couldn't pass. you know, fund the government. it's one of our most basic constitutional responsibilities. americans expect us to work together as the united states

senate across the aisle to reach agreement on these bills. the programs funded in these bills make a real difference in people's lives. it shouldn't be held up to partisan differences. let's do what we were sent here to do. let's pass these bills before the fiscal year. we can do it. we have shown them how to do it. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, the most important words of our constitution are the first three, we the people. it's the mission statement of our nation, a nation of the people, by the people, for the people, as president lincoln so eloquently stated. not a nation of, by, and for the powerful and the privileged. but the powerful and privileged are working overtime to undermine our constitution, and ironically they are using the courts to do it. we have seen it happening all

week long as the judiciary committee barrels ahead with hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the u.s. supreme court. this is the same judge kavanaugh whose record from five years of serving in a presidential administration is still being hidden from the senate and from the people of the united states of america. for five years, brett kavanaugh had the ear of the president on a number of critical issues -- how we treat enemy combatants, conduct wars in iraq and afghanistan, use and expand executive power through signing statements, or how the authorization for the use of military force is utilized. five years in the inner circle of america being engaged in policy after policy after policy, and yet chairman grassley and the committee republicans are unwilling to allow that record of insights on

his views to be shared with senators under advice and consent responsibility. and then there is this parallel process in which the documents that are being made available are first vetted by bill burke.. and who is bill burke? well, he is a partisan republican lawyer who used to work for the nominee. he's the one who has final say over what the senate see. he is the one who has final say over what documents are released not just to the senate, but to the american people. he's the one who decided to release 42,000 pages of documents, not the ones from those five years that we're talking about. just hours before the hearing began. who could possibly review 42,000 pages the evening or the night before the hearing occurs? humanly impossible. so there we are with a process

normally headed by a nonpartisan national archives which is still trying to do its work but can't do its work until the end of october to vet these documents. so instead of nonpartisan public servants vetting the documents, we have a partisan republican lawyer who worked for the nominee deciding what we are going to see here in the u.s. senate, what the public, the united states, is going to see. this is not transparency. this is censorship, and censorship is absolutely wrong in numerous contexts, but particularly in intervening with the responsibility of the senate. instead of integrity, we have deceit. instead of honoring advice and consent responsibility, we are dishonoring that fundamental constitutional role. this is a rigged system,

completely and absolutely rigged through the censorship of the documents we see and the blockade from the documents we need, as christian lucius, former judiciary committee staff director who worked on half dozen supreme court nominees, has said, this process is, and i quote, not just breaking the norms. it, frankly, is bordering on absurdity. absurdity, censorship, a complete failure of integrity, that's what's happening right this moment during the u.s. senate deliberation on this supreme court nominee. there was a time not long ago, mr. president, when my republican colleagues argued for

a full transparent examination of a nominee's record before the senate could consider the nomination. when justice kagan was nominated eight years ago by president obama, members of this body, my republican colleagues, said we stand for the principle of transparency. they said we need the full record of the nominee's white house service. here on the senate floor, chairman grassley said, and i quote, in order for the senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent, we must get all of her documents from the clinton library and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a justice. that was the kagan standard or particular -- articulated by my

republican colleagues and shared by my democratic colleagues, a standard that was nonpartisan, a standard that was bipartisan, a standard supported by republicans and democrats for the nomination process for a supreme court justice. the kagan standard is one democrats supported under a democratic president and a republican president. that's called integrity. that's called principle. but what we have today is my republican colleagues saying we supported transparency under a democratic president, but we support censorship and the blockade of documents under a republican president. that is the opposite of principle. that is the opposite of

integrity. the kagan standard supported by both sides just a couple years ago should be the standard that we all support today. can't fully evaluate kavanaugh's record if we don't have the full record of his involvement on so many issues during his time working in the executive branch. now hearings are supposed to give us a chance to get at some of those issues, but what have we heard? well, we've heard the same tired, obligatory responses, such as i will be a judge who calls balls and strikes. and we have heard that before. and then we've seen the right-wing judicial activists legislating from the bench on issue after issue after issue on workers' rights, on environmental rights, on

consumer rights, on reproductive rights. so we know its umpire before you get there, and then suddenly its desire to implement a far right anti-american, anticonstitution philosophy of control by the powerful and privileged, undermining the core principle of the constitution of the united states of america. what else have we heard from judge kavanaugh? we've heard this, well, that is settled law. and that is perhaps the most artificial, phoniest response we could possibley hear. and why is it artificial and phony? because when you're on the supreme court, what you become, what the decisions you make become the interpretation. you either reinforce or you unsettle. but you have no obligation to

follow what the courts have done before. the roberts court has overturned, quote, settled precedents time after time after time. and for a nominee to the supreme court to pretend that isn't the case means either ignorant or deliberately deceptive. i don't think judge kavanaugh is ignorant. he knows the record. he knows the supreme court changes prior precedents. he knows they change, quote, settled law so to evade an issue saying well that's settled is simply to be deceptive. sometimes in addition to the hearings, we learn some information through a nominee's meetings with senators. but judge kavanaugh has refused to answer even the most basic questions about his jurisprudence of senator schumer following his own meeting with the nominee. senator schumer went on to say

that mr. kavanaugh refused to say if roe v. wade or casey vs. planned parenthood were correctly decided, because that would actually be to indicate some sense of one's judicial view. and we're getting nothing. and as senator schumer said, he couldn't, quote, recall his level of involvement in a number of controversies during his time in the bush white house. end of quote. well, here's a thought. if we get the records on his involvement in the bush white house, we will actually know what his thoughts were. and maybe we can jog his memory that he saw carefully and conveniently lost somewhere along the way. the american people deserve integrity in this process. we're not getting it. we do know a fair amount from

his previous public decisions. we know he likes to legislate from the bench against workers, against consumers, against clean air and clean water. we know that he doesn't believe that health care is a fundamental right here in the united states. we know he wants to strike down roe v. wade. and we know that he has a view of the presidency appropriate for a king and a kingdom, but not for a president and a republic. he has this extraordinary view of presidential power. he doesn't believe that a president can be indicted, doesn't believe a president can even be investigated. he believes that a sitting president can choose to ignore laws passed by congress if the president saeugs -- says they're

unconstitutional even if the court has said they're constitutional. now think about that for a moment. here's a judge saying he believes the president can ignore what the courts say is constitutional and unconstitutional. you can't get more expansive presidential power than that. so why was judge kavanaugh chosen off this list of 25 individuals? the answer is pretty clear. because he is the one who can write a get out of jail free card for the president of the united states, our president who is under investigation, under investigation for colluding with foreign powers and flaunting our laws to win a national campaign. his former campaign chairman guilty on eight different criminal charges. his former lawyer and fixer pled guilty to eight criminal charges and testified as directed to make illegal campaign payments at the direction of -- drum roll, please -- at the direction

of a candidate for federal office. and who is this candidate for federal office? none other than president donald trump. president donald trump directing a felony crime. when one hasn't been indicted tph-blgz situation, it's -- in that situation it's referred to as an unindicted coconspirator. the water grand jury used that term to describe the role president nixon played in that national scandal, and it fits perfectly with the role that president trump is playing today. to say that a dark cloud of corruption hangs over this administration, hangs over this nomination would be a massive understatement. and until that cloud is lifted, until this president is cleared, this nomination should not be considered by this body.

but we've already seen that my colleagues have flipped their position from having a democratic president to a republican president. they have turned transparency into censorship. they have taken the kagan standard and trashed it. we cannot act as if all is well in the republic. we cannot act as if everything is normal. we cannot abt -- act like this is any other nomination put forward by any other president, because it's not. it should be clear to all of us this nomination should not go forward until the mueller investigation is concluded. but i know that my colleagues are not prepared to take that stand. but surely we can agree that the senate cannot perform its advice and consent while our hands are tied by a partisan vetting process hiding hundreds of

thousands of documents from the senate and from we the people. so i call upon my colleagues to arise from this low point of yed consent. stand up for the same principles you stood for just a couple years ago when you demanded the full record for the senate to undertake its investigation into a nominee. bring courage and integrity into this process. publicly refuse to proceed until we the senate and we the people have the full set of documents about this individual's records. to do any less is to bring shame and injustice upon this body that i believe in so strongly. our responsibility of advice and consent that i believe in so strongly. the responsibility my colleagues

believed in so strongly just a couple years ago. let's stand together as we stood together, democrats and republicans, demanding transparency and integrity just a couple years ago. let not this be the moment when my colleagues fail to uphold their constitutional responsibility. thank you, mr. president. mr. portman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: first i'd like to comment briefly on the last two speeches. first was from senator leahy. he talked about the appropriations process. i want to commend him, as i did on the floor today, in person for the work he's done with senator shelby and others to actually move these appropriations bills, these spending bills through the process. we have the opportunity here for the first time in a couple of decades to actually get our work done. and it's incredibly important for all the right reasons, including having proper oversight of the federal agencies and departments. he deserves credit for that. my colleague just talked for a

moment about the kavanaugh hearings and he talked about the fact that he believes there's not enough information out about brett kavanaugh. let me just say this, there has never been more information about any nominee to the supreme court ever in the history of our country. in fact, there are more pages of documents that have been provided on brett kavanaugh than for the past five supreme court confirmations combined. over 450,000 pages, and many of my colleagues who raise raised -- raised these concerns will vote no, and that's fine. i know what they want and i understand why they would want it. they want the documents that went through his office when he was staff secretary where when you work in the white house, you're kind of like the traffic cop, everything goes through the white house. but those weren't his documents. and, yes, it's not appropriate to see all of those documents.

that would be, by the way, millions of additional pages, millions, but the 488,000 pages which have been provided, including all the documents from his legal position, where he was a judge, an associate counsel in the white house, those have been provided and that's imood. we should -- and that's good. it's not about the documents. it's about his philosophy. i like his philosophy. he says you shouldn't legitimate from the -- legislate from the desk. the american bar association sometimes criticizes judges as being too far to the left. they said he is eminently qualified. they gave him his highest rating unanimously. this happened last friday. not everybody knows this. this person is not just qualified. i believe he's as qualified as anybody -- anybody in the country to be in the united states supreme court and i'm looking forward to the opportunity to have this vote here on the floor and hope it can be bipartisan as it has been

for the nominees that president obama brought forward, solicitor general-then kagan, judge sotomayor. let's get back to that when somebody is so qualified as this candidate is. mr. president, i also want to talk about this issue of opioid and opioids and the crisis our country faces. just in the last couple of weeks we've gotten reports from the centers for disease control from last year's data on overdoses and deaths. 72,000 americans lost their lives to overdoses last year from drugs. most of those were from opioids. this is hairn prescription drugs, 72,000 americans, in the wake of that, it's encouraging to hear the senate talk about the possibility of bringing a package to the floor of legislation to push back against this crisis and begin to turn the tide. we have to do it, not just talk

about it, but act, because this crisis is upon us and it is very real. these new efforts that we should move forward on will build on what this senate has already done with regard to the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, the cara legislation, that is implemented in my state of ohio and around the country and the 21st century cures act had additional funds for states to fight the opioid addiction. that's smart because there are smarter ways to fight the opioid epidemic. we know that and we're beginning to do this. in the federal level we can play a role, among other things, to take best practices around the country to be sure that those are being used in our states. i've seen this firsthand because i've been around the state of ohio a lot since the legislation passed. i visited more than 1,000 recipients of cara and cures act, and went to other communities to seeing is

innovative to push back. last friday i visited hope village recovery. they received more than $500,000 in kara funding to expand a medicated assisted treatment program. they looked at it in a comprehensive way and it is working. their success rate at getting people through treatment and not relapsing is relatively high. that is so important right now. if you don't get people into treatment with an addiction which is a disease, you're not going to be able to solve this problem. the comprehensive approach includes treatment, counseling, after-care services, peer support. these are couches in -- coaches in recovery. transportation services to get people back and forth. this who willistic approach is what we need to help people begin to heal, get over their addiction, get back to their families, back to work, back to achieving their god-given purpose in life which is not to

be an addict using these drugs. i visited come quest recovery services, it is called the mom and me program. these are moms who want to help to get over their addiction, they are struggling. this program allows them to come on board to this facility that i got to see to be able to have some of the loving support and care from people around them but alsos to have their kids come with them. this is very unusual. very few treatment centers allow children to come into the treatment program. we have found, evidence based, if you allow the kids there and there's proper supervision, it helps. it helps the mothers heal, it helps the kids to heal. this is an innovative program that will end up with great results and it will foster the kind of success that we want to see. programs like these are working, and, yet, the epidemic seems to be getting worse.

why is that? well, because we need to do more of this evidence-based stuff. we need to be sure that every community has the opportunity to provide treatment because a lot of people still can't get treatment. we need to encourage people not to go down this funnel of addiction by stronger prevention and education programs. there are things that we have to do. cara 2.0 has now been drowfd. -- introduced. i have introduced to get additional help so the states can do more and leverage some of the federal dollars to be able to do more with the private sector and with the states to thunder tide of addiction. in the meantime, i talked about the 72,000 lives lost last year, that was a record number. here's a map of the states. this is a map of the change in overdose deaths. if it's purple or bluish, they are doing better. look at this map, almost every state, unfortunately is not

purple or blue. they are tan or brown, and they indicate, as in my state of ohio, an increase of overdose deaths. why is this? i think one of the main reasons for this is because there's a new danger afoot. there's a new surge in drugs, it's very powerful. it's 50 times more powerful than heroin. it's very inexpensive, and it's coming primarily from china and coming primarily through our postal service, if you can believe it, it is called synthetic opioids. fentanyl is the name most of it is called, some is called carfentanil, but this synthetic opioid is now the biggest problem that we have bag -- back in our states. this is the growing crisis. here's a chart that shows what happened since 2015 until now. it shows that, in fact, methamphetamines, other opioids,

hairch -- heroin, other opioids, cocaine, they are relatively flat. but look at this big increase, it is with synthetic opioids. when you look at the 72,000 deaths, the majority was from opioids and increasingly it is from the synthetic opioids. what i hear from the front lines in ohio, whether it's the hope village or comquest facility, unless we win this combat with fentanyl, we will not be able to turn the tides. we are being overrun with the fentanyl. over the last week alone in the columbus, ohio, area, the coroner handled 18 overdose deaths, five within 24 hours. imagine that. the cause, the korn conscious coroner dus suspects is -- suspects is fentanyl. from those who thought they were

taking cocaine or or something else, often because the fentanyl has been used and sprinkled into the drugs. it is 50 times more powerful, as i said, and that's the new scourge of the new opioid epidemic. from 2013 to 2017, fentanyl overdose deaths nationally have increased by 850%. as the coroner's reports continue to come in throughout my home state of ohio, fentanyl appears to be involved in two-thirds of the deaths in ohio. and that's consistent with what i'm hearing on the front lines. unbelievably, we know where it's coming from and we're not doing enough to stop it. it's being made in laboratories in china primarily and other countries and shipped into the united states through our own postal service, a government agency. we conducted an 18-month investigation in a subcommittee i chaired called the permanent

subcommittee on investigations. we had undercovered people working with us, we found out how easy it is to purchase fentanyl shipped to the united states of america. based on our undercover investigation, which can be found through a simple google search, overseas sellers essentially told us they will guarantee delivery if this poison is sent through the united states postal service. they won't guarantee if it is a private carrier, d.h.l. or fedex. why is that? they are required to have law enforcement with electronic data in advance as to what the packages are. where they are going to. they use the algorithms and get them off the lines. i have seen it. i have been at those facilities. i have seen those big packages taken off and lives saved.

the ultimate answer to this is prevention, education, a change in our hearts and our families. better treatment so people who have this disease can get the treatment just like another illness they might have. dealing with this issue of longer-term recovery, which leads to more success and treatment, those are all essential, but right now we have to stop the fentanyl from flooding into our country. look at what it is doing, 850% increase. the information tells law enforcement what they need to be able to pull these packages off if it's provided, and, yet, unbelievely -- unbelievably, although the private carriers have been able to do it, the post office has been spared. the thought was the post office should study the issue. i'm waiting for the report. because of pressure from the congress the post office is starting to look at some of these packages. last year they now testified before us in the subcommittee that they did receive data on about 36% of the international

packages, not 100% as the other carriers do, but 36%, that means that more than 318 million packages are coming in with little or no screening at all without this data. even when the post office conducted a pilot program to screen for these drugs, by the way, 80% of the time they testified these packages that were targeted by cuss comes and board -- cuss comes and -- customs and boredder protection, they were pulled off. also in many cases the information provided was not useful to law enforcement. we need to ensure it is 100% of these packages, that all of this is getting to law enforcement and that the information is useful and legible. the bipartisan stop act is actually an answer to this. the stop act is very simple. my coauthor of the stop act is senator amy klobuchar.

this is a long-overdue reform that says let's hold the post office to the same standard that we hold these private carriers to. let's say they have to provide this data to law enforcement so we can address this issue and push back to keep this poison out of our communities. this bill has been approved for a floor vote on the republican side. i think it's very close to be approved for a floor vote on the democratic side. we're close to a con and sent to -- consent to get the broader backage to the -- package to the floor. we need to ensure that whatever concerns people have that they are very frank about it. we've got to get the politics out of this. we have to be sure we're moving forward as we have been able to do on the cara legislation and the cures legislation. this courage is -- scourge is affecting all of our citizens.

we have to address it at the federal level to help our states, families, and communities to be able to respond. the broader package, the opioid package would include the stop and a number of provisions are from cara 2.0, such as the recovery support programs for high school and college students struggling with addiction, and $60 million for safe care for babies who are born dependent on substances. these babies who were born with neonatal syndrome who are innocent small babies often born premature. i have been to the hospitals in ohio and seen these babies. it is so sad. they have to be taken through withdrawal as a tiny baby. we need to do a better job of preventing that and work with the moms as they become pregnant and ensure the kids get the help they need. it also includes the crib act that would help newborns in the

best setting and provide support for the families. this is bipartisan. it helps to ensure that the babies when they are born with this neonatal abstinence syndrome that they get the care they need. they need medicaid reimbursement they cannot get currently. the bill reauthorizes a number of important programs with a proven of success like the office of national control polls, the drug-free prevention, the hida grants which is law enforcement that focuses on drug interdiction in some of the worst areas of our country for drug use and drug addiction. and the stop act must be wart of -- part of the senate bill as well. anything we offer to help deal with this issue of opioids has to include stopping the fentanyl from coming in. mr. president, it's time for congress to move. this should be noncontroversial.

it's nonsense. we know where these drugs are coming from. we know they're devastating our communities. we know how we can stop this deadly trend. let's pass the stop act and pass thissage as -- package as soon as possible. a chance to live up to their god-given potential. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, marilyn jean horan of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the more lan nomination. all -- horan nomination. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed.

the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, william f. jung of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, kari a. dooley of connecticut to be united states district judge for the district of connecticut. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, dominick w. lanza of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does anybody in the senate wish to vote or wish to change their votes? if not, on this vote the ayes are 60, the nays are 35. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: charles j. williams, of iowa, to be united states district judge for the northern district of iowa. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, on this vote, the ayes are 79, the nays are 12. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: robert r. summerhays of louisiana to be united states district judge for the western district of louisiana. the presiding officer: question is on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: eric c.tostrud of

minnesota to be united states district judge for the district of minnesota. the presiding officer: question is on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will record the next nomination. the clerk: alan d. albright of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. the presiding officer: question is on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the nomination is confirmed. the motion to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: 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 1013. the presiding officer: 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. clerk will record the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of treasury, charles p. rett. ttig of california to be commissioner of internal revenues. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 cloture: 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 p. rettig of california to be commissioner of internal revenue for a term expiring december is it is 2022, 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 ask consent the mandatory quark be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. 1st. mr. mcconnell: i ask the senate proceed to morning business for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 623 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 623 to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the 115th congress or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate la proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the foreclose

reconsider be considered made, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate stand? recess subject to the call of the chairmen. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the u.s. senate today is considering eight u.s. district court judicial nominees. also today the senate judiciary committee is holding confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. when the senate returns to session, we will have live coverage here on c-span 2.