tv U.S. Senate U.S. Senate CSPAN October 1, 2018 3:00pm-6:42pm EDT
3:00 pm
we're the can live at the u.s. capitol here were the u.s. senate is about to gavilan for business this afternoon. lawmakers are expected to start debate on the brett kavanaugh supreme court nomination even though an fbi investigation is underway. they will also take up a five-year reauthorization for the faa with a procedural vote scheduled for 5:30. and now live to the senate floor 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. gracious god, let your glory be over all the earth. thank you for your faithfulness that endures forever. today, give our lawmakers
3:01 pm
steadfast hearts that will honor you. provide them with wisdom to strive to do your will. may their debates and discussions not degenerate into incivility. lord, lead them throughout life's changing scene, strengthening them for every challenge. remind them of the importance of reverential awe, which is the beginning of wisdom. grant us all wisdom and courage for the living of these days. we pray in your holy name, amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag.
3:02 pm
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 clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 1, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roy blunt, a senator from the state of missouri, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.
3:03 pm
3:23 pm
mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: democrati c leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. on friday senators flake, collins and murkowski joined by democratic senators coons, klobuchar and oh made the only fair move, to demand the f.b.i. investigate the credible allegations of sexual misconduct by supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. it was the right thing to do.
3:24 pm
fair to both dr. blasey ford and judge kavanaugh. for too long republicans have rushed this process forward and likely would have rushed to a final vote if not for the prudent bipartisan efforts of those senators to demand a full f.b.i. investigation. what's important now is for the f.b.i. investigation to be serious, impartial and thorough, to ferret out the facts and do so quickly. that means interviewing all -- all -- of the relevant witnesses and accepting corroborating accounts when they come forward. it also means following up on any leads that emerge from the process of the investigation. the f.b.i. has ample resources to do this within the one-week period requested by the members of the judiciary committee. no one is asking it take longer than a week, but everyone is asking it be done thoroughly and completely within that week.
3:25 pm
there is concern that the white house has placed severe constraints on the investigation, and until today the president tried to dodge that responsibility. the white house even saying that the senate is somehow responsible for the scope of the investigation. let me be clear, the senate has no control over the scope of an f.b.i. investigation of this sort. only the white house. now a few hours ago i was glad to hear president trump say that he would like to see dr. ford and judge kavanaugh interviewed by the f.b.i. as part of this investigation and that the f.b.i. should be able to interview anyone -- anyone -- appropriate. we have to make sure now that those comments reflect what the white house has officially told the f.b.i. democratic senators, led by ranking member feinstein, have
3:26 pm
asked the white house what parameters it's giving to the f.b.i., but we haven't yet received a reply. so we need an official document from the white house made public so the whole country knows what the scope is. and it should outline the scope of the investigation. we asked the president -- we ask the president if you are truly giving the f.b.i. the ability to follow the facts wherever they lead, show us. show us what white house counsel don mcgahn has instructed the f.b.i. because prior to president trump's off-the-cuff comments in the rose garden, there were rumors that the majority staff of the are judiciary committee were drawing up limited interview lists for the f.b.i. and otherwise circumscribing the investigation. partisan staffers on the judiciary committee should not exercise any constraints over this investigation. democratic staffers asked the
3:27 pm
republican majority staff to get on the phone with counsel mcgahn to discuss what should be the parameters, and they were told forget it. it's the same partisan staff that has blocked documents, that has operated in a purely partisan way, that couldn't come up with an agreement when these things had always been done in a bipartisan way. and so to let the partisan senate staff on the republican side dictate the terms of this investigation would be wrong and ultimately president trump knows and counsel mcgahn knows the buck stops with the white house. it is only they who instruct the f.b.i. and now that the president has said he wants a full investigation, that he wants both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh interviewed, we assume that will happen. but we want to make sure that
3:28 pm
mr. mcgahn tells the f.b.i. just that. the senate and the american people deserve to know what is the scope of the investigation because this investigation must be done in a manner that allows the public to have confidence in its findings. whether you are for or against judge kavanaugh going to the supreme court, it will only benefit the country if the investigation is regarded as fair, clear, and not constrained particularly by partisan means. for that reason, we hope the f.b.i. will be available to brief the senate on the results of the investigation before a final floor vote. democrats are not interested in delay for the sake of delay. this can all be completed quickly, but it must be done right.
3:29 pm
mr. president, we're a society based on the rule of law. it's therefore crucial the american people have faith in the judiciary, especially the supreme court. our job as senators is to decide if someone has the intelligence, the temperament, the independence, and the credibility to earn the title of justice for a lifetime. character matters. character matters deeply. anyone who watched the judiciary committee hearing on thursday should have serious, if not disqualifying doubts about judge kavanaugh's credibility and independence, qualities we should expect in any supreme court justice. first let me address the nominee's independence. after dr. blasey ford's courageous, polite, detailed and credible testimony to the committee, judge kavanaugh embarked on a partisan screed, angrily implicated u.s. senators
3:30 pm
in a conspiratorial plot it to destroy his nomination. he even had the democrat -- the temerity to label the recent allegations a part of revenge of the clintons, an absurd bogeyman going forward. and that was from judge kavanaugh's prepared opening statements. when questioned, it judge kavanaugh impugned the motive of sitting senators, rudely interrupting and dismissing questions in a way i've never seen tolerated from a witness. he asked a member of the senate if she had ever passed out from drinking. it's quite clear from thursday's testimony judge kavanaugh
3:31 pm
harbors deep partisan resentments. that's not the kind of justice we need on the supreme court. i must say this isn't the first time i thought that judge kavanaugh was too partisan. when he came before the judiciary committee in 2004 and 2006, i noted he was involved in ever major legal partisan fight of the clinton and bush eras from ken starr to bush-gore to mandy mer randa's theft of e-mails. i wonder then, as i do today, whether we should promote a loyal partisan warrior to a position that calls for independence and issueusness -- and judiciary. judge kavanaugh displayed partisanship that showed his object activity.
3:32 pm
i understand these issues are emotional. i understand that his character was being questioned. but rather than provide sincere and measured testimony in his defense, which would have been far more effective, judge kavanaugh revealed that his world view is skewed by a very partisan lens. and let me address probably the most important question about judge kavanaugh, his credibility. president trump has suggested it doesn't matter what someone did 36 years ago in high school. whether -- whatever view you take of that notion, i believe, given the seriousness of what dr. ford, it should matter. but the question of judge kavanaugh's credibility is that -- is one that weighs on us today on his behavior right now. it is not a question about what judge kavanaugh did as a 16 or 17-year-old, but what he said as
3:33 pm
a 53-year-old nominee to the court. the harsh fact of the matter is that we have mounting evidence that judge kavanaugh is just not credible. he is disassembled about the bush nomination on torture, the grand jury proceedings and the theft of democratic e-mails. thursday's hearing provided fresh examples of judge kavanaugh's difficult relationship with the truth. judge kavanaugh gave answers about his yearbook page, supposed drinking games, and high school behavior that simply defied credulity. judge kavanaugh said that he, quote, never, unquote, drank so much he forgot events, a characterization that does not track with multiple descriptions with many high school and college classmates. so the 64 -- $64,000 question is
3:34 pm
this. is judge kavanaugh credible? will judge kavanaugh say anything? deny anything? mislead anything about anything to secure confirmation to the supreme court? does he have the integrity, the independence, the credibility to do the job? does judge kavanaugh deserve the promotion of a lifetime for a lifetime? these very serious questions about judge kavanaugh's state of mind and who he is today, not who he was in 1982, should weigh on the conscience of every senator. in my experience with judge kavanaugh in 2004, 2006, and again throughout this process, i have been left with the prescription that judge kavanaugh would disassemble,
3:35 pm
mislead, -- mislead senators about everything from the momentous to the mundane, whatever it takes to cast his nomination in the most favorable light. faced now with the gravest of allegations and the sincere testimony of a very courageous woman, i believe the senate should consider the issue of credibility to be front and center in deciding whether judge kavanaugh deserving a seat on the bench, an appointment -- a lifetime appointment to the most important court in the land. i yield the floor.
3:36 pm
mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the confirmation process for judge brett kavanaugh, one of the most qualified and most impressive supreme court nominees in our nation's history, is moving forward. on friday, the judiciary committee reported this nomination favorably, then here on the floor we officially moved to take up the nomination. every republican member of the committee agreed that judge kavanaugh should be reported out with a favorable recommendation and every democrat voted in opposition. and in some cases before he or anyone had even been nominated.
3:37 pm
and they didn't mince any words, mr. president. the way one democratic member of the judiciary committee put it, supporters of judge kavanaugh are, quote, listen to this, complicit and evil. that's the democratic member of the judiciary committee. another democrat on the committee before judge kavanaugh was even named described an almost apocalyptic terms, the consequences of whomof the president might -- whomever might nominate. here is the quote. we're looking at the destruction of the constitution of the united states as far as i can tell. and here is the democratic leader just hours after judge kavanaugh was nominated. i will oppose him with everything i've got. well, they've certainly done just that.
3:38 pm
they've done just that. the ranking democrat on the committee first heard from dr. ford on july 30. did our colleague alert the chairman so the committee could do due diligence in a confidential way consistent with dr. ford's wishes? no. no, she did not. did she discreetly raise the issue with judge kavanaugh during his private meeting with him on august 20? she didn't do that either. as best we can tell, the democrats chose to keep this allegation secret rather than investigating in a bipartisan and timely way. in fact, mr. president, they held it in reserve. but meanwhile the senior senator
3:39 pm
from california, or her office, were already in communication with dr. ford. in fact, her office had already recommended -- recommended dr. ford retain a particular washington, d.c., law firm. now, mr. president, the firm in question is not exactly foreign to democratic politics. two -- two of its founding partners, including one of the attorneys who personally appeared at the hearing to represent dr. ford, had until recently been scheduled to hold a fundraiser for one of our senate democratic colleagues tonight -- tonight. oh, and by the way, the firm had also represented in another matter the person who has made the most salacious and
3:40 pm
disgusting accusations against judge kavanaugh as a high school student. this is the firm the judiciary committee democrats recommended to dr. ford. not long thereafter, of course, dr. ford's letter to the senior senator from california wound up in the hands of the press. the same letter in which she asked for confidentiality was leaked. by whom? as best i can tell, nobody had possession of this letter except for dr. ford's democratic congresswoman, the democratic side of the judiciary committee, and presumably the politically connected lawyers they recommended to dr. ford. and somehow -- somehow it ended
3:41 pm
up in the press. dr. ford's plea for privacy was brushed aside, a predictable media circus was launched. of course, the questionable and concerning handling of this matter didn't stop there. in her testimony dr. ford seemed surprised that chairman grassley had offered her legal team a number of more discreet and less burdensome ways to share her story if she preferred. the chairman had offered to fly investigators out to florida -- to california or anywhere else for a private interview at a time and a place of dr. ford's choosing. apparently, mr. president, neither of our democratic colleagues, nor the lawyers they recommended, felt it was necessary to make these options
3:42 pm
clear to dr. ford. she told the committee, quote, i wasn't clear on what the offer was. i would have been happy to speak with you out there, referring to california. it wasn't clear to me that was the case. so, mr. president, let's take stock of all of this. the ranking member withheld serious allegations from committee colleagues, precluding any chance that they would be handled with sense activity and discretion -- sense sensitivity and discretion, meanwhile the accuser retained specific politically connected counsel. then her confidential account reached the media faster than it reached either the chairman of the committee or the f.b.i., which our colleagues have been
3:43 pm
insisting must now look into it. and, finally, we have reason to believe that dr. ford was not even apprised of the chairman's offers to collect her testimony in ways that might have been less likely to create a media circus and less burdensome on her. it's almost as if dr. ford didn't want a washington, d.c., based media circus, but others whom she was relying on wanted exactly that. so we've learned that if you confide in the senate democrats on highly sensitive personal matters, no request for confidentiality will keep you
3:44 pm
from becoming a household name. and even a nominee whose judicial philosophy senate democrats deem to be objectionable, no century-old standard of presumed innocence will protect your name, your family, or your reputation from irreparable damage. now, fortunately, chairman grassley has taken action to clean up this mess. last thursday he supervised a professional and respectful hearing. he retained an experienced sex crimes prosecutor to methodically collect the details of dr. ford's recollections. this is a professional who was recognized as outstanding arizona sexual assault prosecutor of the year by former
3:45 pm
democratic governor janet napolitano, a former cabinet secretary of president obama and a member of the anita hill legal team back in 1991. here's what she wrote in her memo to members following the hearing. a he said-she said case is incredibly difficult to prove. but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegation or failed to corroborate them. i do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee, nor do i think this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of
3:46 pm
evidence standard. that is a lower standard. while my democrat colleagues listened to this political opinion, even though it conflicts with their mission, don't hold your breath. nor am i optimistic they will stay consistent and accept the conclusions of the supplemental background investigation the f.b.i. is now conducting on top of its six prior investigations of judge kavanaugh. democrats demanded a supplemental investigation. they proclaimed it would be a game changer. the democratic leader and the ranking democrat on the committee both said recently that an f.b.i. investigation can be completed in less than a week. but, mr. president, i bet almost anything that after it runs its course in the next few days, we will then be treated to a
3:47 pm
lecture, a lecture that anything short of a totally unbounded fishing expedition of indefinite duration is too limited or too arbitrary or somehow insufficient. we all know that's coming. if you listen carefully, mr. president, you can practically hear the sounds of the democrats moving the goal post. remember back in the summer, democrats said there weren't enough documents to get a good sense of judge kavanaugh's career. then we heard there were too many documents. then once dr. ford's private allegation was mysteriously made public, we couldn't possibly move forward until we heard from them both.
3:48 pm
then after neither the hearing nor the statements of supposed witnesses yielded any corroborating evidence and in fact produce evidence that supported judge kavanaugh, we were told only an f.b.i. investigation would resolve this and that it could be done promptly. let me go out on a limb, mr. president. let me make a small prediction. soon enough the goal post will be on the move once again. i would respectfully say to my colleagues did these actions suggest this is ever been about finding the truth? anybody believe that? these actions suggest that this has ever been about giving judge kavanaugh a fair hearing? this institution has seen before
3:49 pm
episodes somewhat like what we're now seeing from some of our colleagues across the aisle. back during the mccarthy era. in fact, in 1950. character assassination and uncorroborated allegations were being utilized in a very different debate in that era. that's when a distinguished senator from maine named margaret chase smith, an icon from the great state of our colleague, senator collins, went to the senate floor to say enough was enough. she gave a speech that guaranteed she'd be in the history of the senate. she titled it declaration of
3:50 pm
conscience. here's what she said. i do not like the way in which the senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. margaret chase smith went on. whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined we should listen to these words. they speak as loudly today as they did 68 years ago. in my judgment, the pattern of behavior we've seen confirms what democrats' own public statements have told us. they're committed to delaying,
3:51 pm
obstructing, and resisting this nomination with everything they've got. they just want to delay this matter past the election. that's not my supposition, mr. president. that's their plan. according to another democratic member of the judiciary committee, the junior senator from hawaii, that's their plan. so soon i expect we'll hear that the conclusions of the expert prosecutor who questioned both witnesses at last week's hearing aren't reliable or that the f.b.i.'s investigation was not infinite or endless enough for their liking. maybe we'll hear the real issue is not these uncorroborated allegations of misconduct after all but rather the fact that judge kavanaugh -- now listen to this -- drank beer in high school and in college.
3:52 pm
or the fact that he was rightfully angry. who wouldn't be? that his good name and his family have been dragged through the mud with a campaign of character assassinations based on allegations that lack any core ran ration -- corroboration? who wouldn't be angry about that, mr. president? their goal post keeps shifting. but their goal hadn't moved an inch, not an inch. the goal has been the same all along. and so let me make it very clear. the time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close. judge kavanaugh's nomination is out of committee. we're considering it here on the floor. and, mr. president, we'll be voting this week.
4:07 pm
4:08 pm
the kavanaugh hearing, the second hearing, i think we all need add little bit of time to decompetents and to digest what -- to decompress and to digest what exactly happened. it was fair and necessary in my view to hold a hearing because dr. christine ford, against her wishes, as it turned out, was thrust into the national spotlight by our democratic colleagues. but once there, we believe she deserved a chance to tell her story. and just as importantly, judge kavanaugh deserved a chance to speak to the american people and to clear his name. i told people before, and i'll say it again, i with aens to make sure -- i want to make sure that dr. ford is treated no worse than my own daughters would be if they found
4:09 pm
themselves in this unfortunate circumstance, or my mother, or my wife. similarly, i think judge kavanaugh should be treated as well as we would want our father or brother or our son or somebody's husband were they to find themselves in his circumstances. this is really about fairness in the end, a fair process, one that gives everybody a chance to tell their story. one of the things that makes us so different is that we know that the senators listening to this testimony, that many of them -- almost half of them throughout the senate had already made up their mind. i'd hate to walk into a courtroom where the judge and the jury had already made up their mind without even hearing from the witnesses. unfortunately, that's the kind
4:10 pm
of hearing room that judge kavanaugh walked into last week. now we've heard dr. ford's story , and we've heard judge kavanaugh's strong and forceful rebuttal. what's so unusual now -- and i guess the goalpost seems to shift every day, maybe even every hour. now i hear some people saying judge kavanaugh's rebuttal and his denial was so forceful and he was obviously so upset that that somehow negatively reflects on his judicial temperament, and then he's disqualified for trying to defend his good name. but i would defy any member of the senate, frankly anybody in the country, whose reputation and way of life was threatened with destruction, whose
4:11 pm
reputation as a father, as a husband, as a member of the second highest court in the country under similar attack on their reputation and their good name, i would defy anyone not to be angry about that, if they believed the allegations against them were completely false. what we found out is there is simply no evidence to corroborate or confirm dr. ford's allegation. we've all heard that the individuals who dr. ford said were present the night of the alleged assault either have no recollection of such a party or say the assault never happened. that includes one of dr. ford's best friends at the time, leland keyser, who says she doesn't remember ever meeting brett kavanaugh and certainly she
4:12 pm
wasn't present at an event such as dr. ford described. well, this brings us back to the hearing last week. we watched judge kavanaugh defend his personal integrity and good name in front of the nation. true, he did demonstrate some righteous indignation at the way our colleagues across the aisle have handled this confirmation. he became very emotional as he choked back tears. but i must say, he wasn't the only one choking back tears during his defense of his good name and reputation. there were many eyes around the room and across the country that were not dry. and he didn't aim his furry at -- his fury at dr. ford but, rather, at the atrocious way the claims were sprung on him at the 11th hour, using an you are fair process -- using an unfair process that violated the rules
4:13 pm
of the judiciary committee. they were not handled in the normal way, which would have respected the privacy and the desire for confidentiality of dr. ford but, at the same time, made sure that a good man was not smeared in public by allegations that could not be proven. we know when these -- when dr. ford's allegations were brought to the attention of the judiciary committee back in july, specifically to the ranking member, senator feinstein, she didn't share those with either the f.b.i., which she ultimately did, long after the first period, or with the judiciary committee background investigation professional staff. that's the way they should have been handled, and, as a matter of fact, dr. ford said that when she heard that we would have interviewed her in california in
4:14 pm
a private, confidential setting about allegations, she said, nobody ever told me that. and so she was thrust against her will into this national spotlight and circus-like atmosphere. somebody is not helping dr. ford. somebody is thrusting dr. ford into this position against her desires and expressed wishes. leaking her letter shall which she asked -- leaking her letter, which she asked remain confidential, it is unfortunately a pattern that is beginning to develop here. that brings us back to the hearing last week. as i said, we watched the judge defend his integrity in front of the nation. but we know that the allegations
4:15 pm
of dr. ford were held until the time was right, when they could be unveiled and weaponized to inflict the maximum amount of damage. by the look on some of my colleagues' faces during the hearing last week, judge kavanaugh struck a nerve. i think they started to realize what these last couple of weeks must have been like for him and his family. his wife, his two daughters, his parents. the girls he coached in basketball. i think that's why the judge felt like he had to forcefully defend his good name and reputation against unproven allegations. and who among us would do anything less? we don't live in a country where once accused of something you're
4:16 pm
assumed to be guilty. that would be a violation in a court of due process of law, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that if you're going to make serious allegations against somebody -- in this case, allegations of a crime -- that you have to meet certain standards. you have to prove it. but here as we found out dr. ford's allegations are not proven. all of people who could, according to her, substantiate her allegations said i don't remember anything like that. i was never present at such an event. but that doesn't seem to bother any of our colleagues who had already decided to oppose this nomination. that's one of the things i hate the most about washington, d.c. it's not enough to win an election. it's not enough to win an argument for some people.
4:17 pm
they want to destroy you. it's an ugly, cruel, and reckless way to street another human being. i wish i could say some of my colleagues across the aisle expressed one ounce of remorse and publicly stated the way we handled this might have been wrong. maybe we should have done it a different way. maybe we should have raised the issue much earlier as the normal way of processing such an allegation would be handled, in a way that protected dr. ford and gave her a safe environment to tell her story and be questioned by the bipartisan professional staff who handled background investigations as well as the f.b.i. we could have done that in a way that respected dr. ford's wishes, but we did not because of the way this has been
4:18 pm
mishandled. so far as i can tell, none of our colleagues across the aisle who have foisted this unfair, embarrassing, disgraceful process on dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, none of them expressed any regret or remorse or offered any apologies. they haven't been willing to admit that their stealth tactics have done damage to one man and his family, to the senate, to the supreme court, and to our national fabric. at the same time, exposing dr. ford to the sort of public scrutiny and spotlight that she asked, she implored. senator feinstein, please protect me from that sort of environment, and we could have if it had been handled the right way. our colleagues across the aisle have simply refused to cooperate at all in the process.
4:19 pm
they called for an additional supplemental f.b.i. investigation, but when we tried to question witnesses at the staff level on a bipartisan -- in a bipartisan way, they simply have refused to participate. none of them have said the obvious, which is that's pretty odd that dr. ford's lawyers apparently didn't tell her that investigators volunteered to come to florida to speak with her in private. it's downright strange that she didn't know she was being directed to democrat lawyers and being sent off for polygraph examinations, instead of being directed to the f.b.i. or the senate judiciary committee professional staff. our colleagues across the aisle have never questioned their allies' motives were anything less than righteous or pointed out the political convenience of any of this.
4:20 pm
but their assault on one man's integrity is convenient, in other words, that this has been self-serving for our friends across the aisle who have already committed to oppose the nomination, no matter what. none of this makes it any less callous. so now we have agreed and the white house and the f.b.i. have agreed to conduct a completely background investigation, something that could have been done months ago, should have been done. it will last no more than one week, but it could take less time, too. that's up to the f.b.i. to determine who they believe they should interview for this supplemental background investigation, limited to up to a week and based on current and credible accusations.
4:21 pm
those are the criteria. our colleague and others from delaware during the hearing suggested that this period of time was sufficient. back when we were discussing what was going to happen at the markup on judge kavanaugh's nomination last friday, every single one of the democrats on the senate judiciary committee said just give the f.b.i. one more week. and that's what is happening, but it won't make any difference. they are not persuadeable. they have already made up their mind. but it would not surprise me if at the end of the week they raise their voices which they have already begun to do and move the goalpost, change their tune, find some fault with the f.b.i.'s investigation or the length of time in which it was conducted. i wouldn't be surprised because
4:22 pm
that's the way they have conducted themselves since the president announced judge kavanaugh as the nominee. always find reason to delay, ask for something. if they're given it, well, that's not enough. although i did not think an additional or supplemental background investigation was necessary, i'm not opposed to the supplemental f.b.i. investigation. what we already know is that the three people who dr. ford said were present at the party have all given sworn statements under penalty of felony, saying i don't remember or it didn't happen, not in my presence. they are already under oath and can be prosecuted if they're not telling the truth. i'm not quite sure what the f.b.i. is supposed to ask them after that. they said didn't happen or don't
4:23 pm
remember or didn't happen, i wasn't there. i'm not sure what else they can really investigate. but i ultimately believe that given the state of the record, i don't believe that the f.b.i. supplemental background investigation will significantly alter the situation we find ourselves in currently. and that situation is this -- the allegations we discussed during last week's hearing remain uncorroborated and unproven if they never came up in the context of six or other f.b.i. background checks, if they had been explicitly denied time and time again by the nominee, if alleged eyewitnesses have no recollection of them and/or say they didn't happen. if they conflict with the accounts of many, many women who knew the nominee to behave honorably, in high school and college and law school and as a
4:24 pm
professional, and countless more women that have known and interacted with judge kavanaugh since. if the timing seems calculated, unusual, and politically motor civil righted and if our democratic colleagues choose not to act on this opportunity when it was much more appropriate than now for them to do so, then there is simply no reason we should not move forward. the dye is cast, and it has been cast for quite a while. a number of our colleagues announced against president trump's nominee for the supreme court even before he was identified. a dozen or so more shortly after he was identified without the benefit of any of the hearings that the american people have been a party to. and move forward we will soon, because we simply cannot in the united states of america establish a precedent by which any nominee could be derailed by
4:25 pm
last-minute unproven accusations. if we do, then why would anyone want to subject themselves to this process. anybody and everybody who is nominated to a senate-confirmed position would be subject to this same precedent once set -- guilty until you prove your innocence. well, i wasn't there at the time that this was alleged. while you still have to prove a negative, you say you weren't there but you still have to prove your innocence. that's the opposite of what the presumption of innocence calls for. that's the opposite of what due process of law calls for. that's the opposite of what our constitutional system demands in fairness to everybody involved. if that precedent were set --
4:26 pm
which i pray it will not be set -- the only ammunition the opposition would need to shoot down any figure at any time would be innuendo, speculation, suspicion, nothing more. we can't let that happen. we're not going to allow that to happen, and we're not going to set that kind of precedent. it always seems that it's never quite enough to satisfy our colleagues across the aisle dominican republic when it comes to the war over judicial confirmations, now the kavanaugh nomination. it's always more, more, and more. set the goalposts, move the goal posts, backtrack from what you have agreed to, all in the interests of more delays which provide more time for the
4:27 pm
unproven, uncorroborated smears on the character of the nominee and the more pain and anguish of the family who has to suffer along with the nominee and endure these malicious, false, and unproven allegations. where does it end? well, it should end this week. the longer this goes on, you will find more attention seekers, more lawyers who want to see their name in lights or give media interviews, help their business perhaps, i guess. i think it's completely unfair that judge kavanaugh has been made into a pinata.
4:28 pm
opponents to this nominee and the media are practically gleeful at taking another whack at him, completely oblivious to what they are putting this good man and his family and friends through. sieve always supported judge kavanaugh's nomination. i did when he was nominated to the d.c. circuit court of appeals and i do now because i know him to be an up standing and well-qualified individual. when i first met him back in the year 2000, as i mentioned, preparing for an argument before the united states when i was attorney general, i met brett kavanaugh because he was one of the best lawyers in washington, d.c. to help you get prepared to argue a ways before the supreme court. but it's not just my experience with brett kavanaugh. everybody who has practiced with him has said that. condoleezza rice, the former secretary of state who worked with him at the bush white house
4:29 pm
has said that. other law professors, law clerks have said that. hundreds of women who know him have said that. we know he's got a brilliant legal mind. we know his good work over the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals with many cases where he has written the opinion of the court have been adopted by the supreme court of the united states essentially as the law of the land. how do we know he will exercise the kind of care and temperament and fairness that we would expect of a member of the united states supreme court? because he already has for the last 12 years. he will judge those before him fairly and carefully. judge kavanaugh belongs on the nation's highest bench, and by the end of this week, it will be time to put him there.
4:30 pm
4:46 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. i come to the floor this evening, this afternoon, to speak about a development, an announcement that occurred last night that an agreement had been reached to modernize the north america free trade agreement. the nigh agreement -- the new agreement named usmca, will bring this trade pack with our countries into the 2 #st century. over the past year and a half, i have been working with my colleagues and others in the administration to make clear to president trump, to ambassador light highser, whether it was
4:47 pm
meetings with the president an cab gnat officials through subcommittee chairmanship, through speeches on the senate floor, or many of my constituents in kansas whose livelihoods depend on trade. i've written numerous letters to the u.s. agricultural leaders and various agricultural organizations and spoke at annual meetings of national farm and ranch groups to rally producers to fight trade -- find trade relationships. i spend a lot of time in kansas, nearly 100 town hall meetings, attended by various ag and commodity groups, i talked to local media where folks are particularly interested in nafta and trade at home. in each of these instances, i was clear withdrawing from nafta without a replacement would be def staying to the kansas
4:48 pm
economy. while nafta modernization was tiew to -- due to reflect changes in the economy, the agreement has been critical to growth in agricultural exports and created countless manufacturing jobs in my state. canada and mexico are two export markets as a result of nafta that account for approximately 39% of all total exports from kansas. we, as kansans, sell more aerospace parts to canada than anywhere else in the world and more food commodities to mexico than anywhere else in the world. the new agreement includes all three countries. when the u.s. bilateral mexico deal, an agreement without canada would be a step backward. i applaud president trump for taking this seriously and
4:49 pm
recognize the ben -- recognizing the benefit of all three nations being included in the final agreement. the new road ahead will not be easy. i am carefully reviewing the details and look forward to additional economic analysis on its impact that would have, particularly in kansas, but on farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers across our country and the impact on their employees. once the president signs the agreement, it will be up to congress to consider and approve the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement, most likely next year. right now farmers and ranchers are breathing a sigh of relief at a time when producers are facing low commodity prices. agricultural conditions in our state due to drought, commodity prices and uncertainty of export markets is really a significant challenge. simply put we produce more in
4:50 pm
this country than we consume. farmers, agricultural leaders have spent their own time and money by developing export markets. we have checkoff markets to look at the sale of sales. over a span of years, and sometimes even decades, u.s. producers have built relationships with customers around the world based upon our ability to consistently deliver high-quality products. this should inspire confidence in our purchasers in mexico and canada as well as are around the world that america will continue to be a reliable supplier of food and agriculture commodities. under the new agreement, all agriculture commodities that have duty -- that are duty free under nafta will continue. those who have had a long, difficult time with canada's supply management will enjoy
4:51 pm
greater access to the canadian market. a trilateral agreement is important to those in kansas who enjoy an integrated supply change. excluding canada would have disrupped the market and -- dips rupted the market. there is the 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that have raised prices and resulted in retaliation against u.s. producers, including pork producers in kansas. while ill come to the floor to commend an agreement being reached on modernizing nafta, we have a lot of work to do to resolve current trade disputes while building new export markets. the trade dispute with china has harmed farmers and ranchers when they can least afford it. they have faced low prices and declining income for a better part of a decade. if we lose major export markets
4:52 pm
we will see a long downturn in prices instead of a recovery that is so desperately needed and desired. since the start of the trade dispute with china, soybean prices have fallen over $2 per bushel, which equates to grain handlers losing out on $378 million of possible revenues solely on soybeans. kansas -- heart of the sort yum produced goes to china. it is estimated that the decline will result in about $87 of lost revenue per acre planted in kansas. i held two hearings to review the administration's trade policies in the appropriation subcommittee i chair, commerce, justice, science, including a hearing with ambassador
4:53 pm
lighthizer, this allows me to express the importance of trade and the importance of trade to kansas. i looked forward to continue to engage as chairman of this subcommittee the importance of the trade. the ability of kansans to make a living depends on selling what we produce and manufacture around the world, and i will continue to urge in the direction of more trade, not less. i will also keep working to meet with farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, commodity groups, agricultural leaders, and organizations to make certain their voices are heard and i will be a component of the ongoing work to promote free trade. i thank my colleagues for allowing this to remain possible providing kansans with much-needed certain tivment i will further -- certainty.
4:54 pm
i will further analyze this agreement, but last night's announcement is a positive development. and i thank the administration for their pursuit of a better nafta agreement and an inclusion that includes all three countries. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
5:02 pm
the presiding officer: the senator there hawaii. ms. hirono: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, last week the senate judiciary committee heard testimony from dr. christine blasey ford and judge brett kavanaugh about dr. ford's account of an attack on her by judge kavanaugh and a friend when they were all teenagers. dr. ford acquitted herself with
5:03 pm
grace and courage. recounting the terrifying experience that has had a lasting effect on her life. in his own testimony, judge kavanaugh dropped the polite veneer he presented at his confirmation hearing when he complimented all the senators he had met with and told the committee that, quote, the supreme court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. end quote. that was then. but last thursday he launched into a partisan political screed that contradicted everything he has ever professed to believe about the way judges should behave. he said -- i quote -- this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit feud with apparent pentup anger about president trump and the 2016 election. fear that has been unfairly stoked, revenge on behalf of the
5:04 pm
clintons and millions of dollars from left-wing opposition groups. end quote. it reads like a fever dream, a paranoid fantasy. it's simply not true and it arguably violated the code of conduct for united states judges that binds him as a sitting judge on the federal appeals court for the d.c. circuit. dr. ford's own words undercut judge kavanaugh's assertion that a vast left-wing conspiracy is out to get him. in her deeply moving testimony, dr. ford said, and i quote, i thought it was my civic duty to relay the information i had about mr. kavanaugh's conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault. she went on. my hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the senate to consider mr. kavanaugh 's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or
5:05 pm
anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasion of privacy that we have faced since my name became public. end quote. dr. ford was trying to do her civic duty. she wasn't motivated by revenge on anyone's behalf. they had no part in any organized opposition. she was not fueled by pentup anger or resentment. in deciding to come forward, dr. ford was just a person who thought if she could only let the president know what brett kavanaugh did to her, he'd choose someone else. but kavanaugh's attacked -- attacked and tried to turn dr. ford's honest effort into some sort of a dark, ugly ambush. at least he didn't accuse dr. ford of being a part of the alleged conspiracy seeking to derail his nomination. in fact, when senator booker
5:06 pm
asked judge kavanaugh if he blamed dr. ford for a coordinated effort against him, judge kavanaugh said he bore dr. ford no ill will and that people in the hearing room, not dr. ford, were against him. we all saw something about judge kavanaugh's temperament and character that day that should disqualify him from serving on the supreme court of the united states. he was angry. he was belligerent. he was partisan. he went on the attack against senators questioning him. these are not qualities we look for in a supreme court justice or a judge for that matter. but don't take it from me. listen to judge kavanaugh himself. in 2016 in the catholic university law review he wrote about the importance of judges steering clear of politics. he told his readers that, quote,
5:07 pm
a good judge like a good umpire cannot act as a partisan. end quote. he said that while it is good for some judges to come with a background in politics or policy -- again i'm quoting him -- federal judges have to check any prior political allegiances at the door. you have to shed them. end quote. based on judge kavanaugh's testimony last week, it certainly doesn't sound like he has shed his partisan convictions and connections. and in the same law review article, judge kavanaugh wrote that, quote, to be a good judge and a good umpire, it is critical to have the proper demeanor. it is important to keep our emotions in check and be calm amidst the storm. he's not wrong. indeed, the code of conduct for united states judges back him up . cannon 2 of the code says a judge should avoid improoperate
5:08 pm
-- impropriety and in all activities. a judge some respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. it further explains in commentary that, quote, an appearance of impropriety occurs when a reason -- when reasonable minds would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. end quote. and cannon three explains that, quote, a judge should be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. we need to consider the rules and norms that argue against a
5:09 pm
kind of intemperament behavior we saw from judge kavanaugh because of the allegations brought against him by several sources, all of which deserve a full and fair investigation by the f.b.i. i was heartened to see senators flake and coons brother an agreement to hold off on a -- broker an agreement to hold off on a vote for at least a week. since the agreement, questions have arisen about the exact nature of that investigation. it is limited and if so, how? will all these be followed or will the f.b.i. be hamstrung in some way by instructions from the white house? in the ensuing firestorm, there has been a lot of debate about whether the f.b.i. investigation will be credible and professional and not a perfunctory effort. there are some indications now that the f.b.i. will be allowed to do its job. i hope that will be the case.
5:10 pm
i expect the f.b.i. to exhaust all possible avenues of investigation relevant to whether judge kavanaugh had a pattern of drinking that rutted in a-- resulted in aggression and beligerance toward women. as some have said, that judge kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt and unless dr. ford's account can be proven, he should be confirmed but that confuses the issue. no one is entitled to be on the supreme court. the burden should be on judge kavanaugh to show he is fit for the job. and now the republicans' hard gun prosecutor who they hid behind while dr. ford was questioned has published a memo in which she concludes that she could not bring a case based on the evidence heard at the second hearing. frankly, this conclusion is meaningless. i'm sure that in her previous job as a specialist in sex crimes, she would never have
5:11 pm
proceed to a trial before an investigation and she would not have excluded key witnesses. there was no investigation. key witnesses were not called. i hope that this is not the way she would prepare a case. i have said many times that democrats didn't need to manufacture reasons to oppose judge kavanaugh's elevation to the supreme court. based on his record, his opinions, and dissents, his academic writings, his speeches, i have concluded that he will not be a fair and objective justice of the supreme court. his views on reproductive rights, native rights, on legal protections for workers, consumers, and the environment not to mention his very broad views of presidential protections are all of deep concern to me. but now that we have heard dr. ford's account and seen judge kavanaugh's angry and
5:12 pm
combative reaction, it is evident that he should not serve and should not be confirmed to the supreme court. we can do better and the american people deserve better. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, as if in legislative session, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 302 which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 302, an act to provide for protections for certain sports medicine professionals and so forth. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nef nef.
5:13 pm
a senator: thank you, mr. president. one year has passed since 58 lives were cut short at the route 91 harvest music festival. ms. cortez masto: those wounded and killed that night had come together to have fun, relax, and celebrate their love of country music with their friends and families in my hometown of las vegas. instead of a celebration, terror reined down on them. as nevadans woke up to the news as to what happened, many were heart broken. we asked how could this happen. i'll never forget going to the unification center where families were looking for their loved ones or waiting for calls from the coroner. and i'll never forget the parents i spoke to moments before learning their daughter melissa didn't make it. in the weeks following the 1 october massacre, las vegans demonstrated that we are a tight-knit family that rallies together in times of need. we heard stories of incredible
5:14 pm
bravery at the scene of the attack. a husband who died to protect his wife on the night that they were celebrating their 23rd wedding anniversary. a former marine who turned a truck into a makeshift ambulance and drove more than two dozen people to the hospital. a couple who provided c.p.r. to victims as bullets rained down. a mother who went into momma bear mode and used her body as a shield to protect her children. hundreds of concertgoers who risked their lives carrying fellow concertgoers to safety. all of our firefighters and police officers in southern nevada, including the las vegas metropolitan police department, clark county school district police, the las vegas fire department and the clark county fire department deserve our utmost thanks for their bravery on the night of the attack.
5:15 pm
they along with american medical response, medic west ambulance, community ambulance, the university medical center, sunrise hospital and medical center, the valley health system, dignity health, and all the first responders in southern nevada went above and beyond the call of duty. on october 1, many of these brave men and women ran toward the bullets putting their lives in grave danger because they knew it was the only way to save people in need. nurses and doctors worked all through the night, not just on october 1, but for months afterward to care foyer the wounded. before dawn had even broken on october 2, people in las vegas, reno, and throughout the state had formed lines at blood banks. many of the lines were so long, they stretched out of the door and around the block. the staff at united blood
5:16 pm
services worked tirelessly to process the donations and get the blood supply to our area hospitals. in the weeks that followed, las vegans held candlelight vigils, they donated food, coffee, water, and blankets to help the survivors and victims' families. they constructed beautiful memorials that still stand as a testament to those taken and to provide healing to every person impacted by the events of that night. the red cross and the department of veterans affairs stepped in to bring mobile units to our hospitals. the f.b.i. and the nevada victims of crime program helped grieving families secure funds to cover funeral and travel costs. our military community stepped in to provide critical support as well. airmen were present at the concert on the night of the shooting and helped evacuate attendees. nelis medical professional --
5:17 pm
nellis medical professionals treated victims and helped saved lives while the military spouse community collected basic necessities for the survivors and the victims' families. providers at the las vegas-based behavioral bilingual services were instrumental in addressing immigration and language barriers for so many immigrant survivors. and the clark county staff at the las vegas strong resilience center has been there for survivors every step. way, advocating on their behalf and helping them find new jobs, getting compensation for lost wages and getting mental health care that they need. airlines like allegiance and southwest and medical providers like valley health systems, medic west and american medical response helped defray costs for the victims and their families. st. rose dough minute cal hospital said they would not bill or require payment from any of the victims they treated. and united health waived
5:18 pm
cost-sharing for victims so that they could get treatment for months after the tragedy with no out-of-pocket costs. but the generosity didn't end there. people from all over the world donated more than $31 million to pay for basic necessities, medical bills, and funeral costs for the victims and their families. one year has passed since the events of october 1, 2017, and i know for many in our community of las vegas and for the hundreds of survivors it feels like they've been forgotten. but please know, please know the survivors and those who were taken will never be forgotten. wells always hold the names -- we will always hold the names of those in our hearts and minds. in our hearts we are still grieving for the family members who are no longer with us, for
5:19 pm
sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts and children we will never see again and we're still grieving for the survivors' lives will never be the same. i don't believe perfect heal something possible but i do believe we can learn to adjust to the searing pain of trag i d we do it through remembrance. through remembrance. the people we love are never truly gone as long as we are around to say their names or share a memory of them. through remembrance, the people and families who are still healing from their wounds are shown the love and comfort our community. today in remembrance of that all of night one year ago, let's give thanks for the bravery and dedication of our first responders. let's continue to do everything we can to support those who are still struggling to recover from the emotional and physical
5:20 pm
wounds they sustained on octobe. 58 innocent lives ended on october 1, but thousands more were changed forever. we must keep the survivors in our minds and in our hearts as they heal from their injuries, both visible and invisible, and get back on their feet. the davis family lost their daughter nicia. nici a's dream it is what her three sons would graduate and go to college. they started an organization dedicated to fulfilling her dream. i thank the davis family for their resilience and generosity. we must follow the davis' family example and continue to come together as a community. we must come together not just in las vegas but all throughout nevada to bring healing, peace, and hope to everyone who was affected. tonight at 6:30 p.m., the constituent of las vegas will host a ceremony at the las vegas
5:21 pm
community healing garden to dedicate a new remembrance wall. i encourage everyone back home to try to attend this event or simply take a moment to pause and reflect in honor of the victims and their families. in a few moments i'll read the names of everyone who was killed so their names will be preserved the "congressional record." may god bless the city of las vegas, the state of nevada, and everyone affected by this tragedy. today we remember austin cooper meyer, 24 years of age from sparks, nevada. brennan lee stewart, 30, north las vegas, nevada cameron lee robeson, 28, las vegas, nevada. charleston hartfield, henderson, nevada, 34 years of age. eric steven silva, 21 years old, las vegas, nevada.
5:22 pm
laura ann ship, 50, las vegas, nevada. nicai christine tonks, 46, las vegas, nevada. quentin joe robins, 20, henderson, nevada. adrian allen murfit, 35, anchorage, alaska. doreen anderson, 49, anchorage, alaska. brett aaron schwanbeck, 61, only s.olhed. angela christine gomez, 20, riverside, california. austin william davis, 29, riverside, california. bailey d. schweitzer, 20, bakersfield, california. brian scott frazer, 39, lepalma,
5:23 pm
california, candice ryan bowers, 40, garden grove, california. kari ray barnett, 34, riverside, california. christian in a may duarte, 22, california. christopher, hazencom about, california. christopher you luis roybalance, corona, california. dana gardner, 52, grand terrace, california. denise murray cohen, 58, compensate tearia, california. derrick dean taylor, 56, bonita, california, hana alders, 34, beaumont, california. jack renailed beaten, 54, bakersfield, california. jennifer marie, parks,
5:24 pm
lancaster, california. jennifer topez irvine, san diego, california. john joseph fippin, 56, santa clear rita, california. jordan nicolery veria, laverne, california. kelsey meadows, it will, taft, california. carrie lynn galvin, thousands observation, california. kurt allen vontilla, california. lisa marie patterson, 46, lomita, california. melissa ramirez, 26, little rock, california. michelle voe, 32, marina del ray, california. patricia messties, 67, riverside, california. rachel kathleen harper, 33, long beaches, california.
5:25 pm
rosia gaynen, corona, california. sandra lee casey, 35, torrence, california. stacey ann echevert, california. susan marie smith, 53, simi valley, california. teresa camera, california. thomas allen day, jr., 54, corona, california. victor lloyd link, 53, california. h-meddie, edmonton, alberta, canada. jessica vinechuck, valley view, alberta, canada. jordan heckledon't know, maple ridge, british columbia, canada.
5:26 pm
terra ann roe, 34, alberta, canada. harley ann crybalm, 33, sutherland, iowa. rhonda laroch talks. mr. burr:ry, massachusetts. lisa marie nunes, 48, gallop, new mexico. william winfield, wolf, jr., 42, newburgh, pennsylvania. a senator: james sonny mettleton, big sandy, tennessee. hedger lorraineal dorado, 35, utah. carolyn lee parsons, 31, seattle, washington. denise berdides, west virginia. and to the hundreds injured that night, those still recovering
5:27 pm
5:30 pm
the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 302, an act to provide protections for certain sports medicine professionals, and so forth, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
5:31 pm
the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 302, an act to provide protections for certain sports medicine professionals who provide certain medical services in a secondary state and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
6:10 pm
6:11 pm
amendments pending thereto fall. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. last month, we were reminded again of the important work that journalists do in our communities, bringing ohioans or oklahomans, or people from kansas or wherever the information they need in an unfolding crisis. in september we got one of the worst news alerts that anyone of us could imagine. there was an active shooter in cincinnati. we hugged loved ones a little tighter as we prayed for those affected by the latest senseless shootings that took the lives of three innocent ohioans. we thanked the first responders and the law enforcement officers, everyone caring for the injured and thanked the
6:12 pm
local reporters who rushed to the scene doing their job to keep our community informed in a crisis. reporters gave ohioans real-time information online and on tv, immediately getting the word out to warn people to avoid the area where the shooter wastive. they -- active. they talked to law enforcement and witnesses on the scene. from first-hand accounts they established that the first shots were heard before 110 nine a.m. -- a cincinnati police officer saw a lady down and she was dragged out of the bank. it's yet another horrific scene among far too many we have endured in this country. and in every one of these tragedies, every single one, courageous journalists, citizens of our country, not enemies of the people, are among the first on the scene the they tell us the stories behind the victims. they help us honor the memory of
6:13 pm
those we lost. after the incident is over and the immediate danger has passed, reporters keep working, interviewing loved ones and giving a full picture of what another shooting has cost our country. they reported that cincinnati lost a father, grandfather and a son, a young programmer just getting started in his career, a father of two teenagers who will have to live with the scars of losing a parent and a grandfather of eight. it's despicable that congress refuses to pass commonsense gun safety laws to protect americans from yet more gun violence. as these tragedies keep happening, we keep pressing for change, we keep thanking law enforcement, we thank our medical professionals who deal with the unthinkable -- unthinkable of a mass shooting, and we keep thanking reporters, just doing their jobs,
6:14 pm
newspaper, radio, television, online, who just do their job to bring us the facts and who deserve our respect no matter the comments of some people in elected office. mr. president, i ask that the remainder of my remarks be inserted in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. last -- last week, we learned from investigative reporting that a senior political appointee -- political appointee at the consumer production bureau, eric blannenstein, has written hateful log posts. this is a man hand picked for the job and paid well by taxpayers. he was picked by nick mulvaney. he is tasked to protect laws. the consumer protection bureau is supposed to be on the front
6:15 pm
lines fighting for families. the person with blankenstein's job should be fighting in preventing the very real financial discrimination that everybody in this body knows happens all too often today in ohio, oklahoma, and across this country. instead we now know because of the news reports, we know the person tasked with this job has written that most hate crimes, quote, are hoaxes. these blog posts are filled with disgusted bigoted language which i will not repeat on the floor because we have a better decorum than that and this language is so offensive. how is it the director of management and budget failed to look into the background of such a senior well-paid political appointee? placing blankenstein in charge of fair lending was a moral mistake, a managerial failure and he should be fired
6:16 pm
immediately. it's been a week now since reporters found those hateful writings. the fact that he's still on the job is a disgrace. the president should act. the cfpb head should act. we've seen no contrition from blankenstein, no contrition from him, no apology for the hateful post, no acknowledgment that these are totally inappropriate and immoral views for someone whose job it is at the agency to root out discrimination. how can you expect to lead a staff dedicated to that mission after these revelations, after of this attitude, after expressing these kinds of views? there should be no place in the consumer protection bureau for people who don't believe discrimination is real or don't believe discrimination is a serious problem. too many americans are turned down for loans, are charged higher rates based on their color of their skin. we know that, mr. president. that is proven. that is documented. a report this year from the center for investigative reporting analyzed tens of
6:17 pm
millions of mortgage records. they found that across the country, people of color are far more likely to be turned down for a loan even when you take into account factors like their income and the size of the loan. someone's african american or latino with the same income, same size of loan, the same financial information, the person of color is more likely to be turned down than the person that looks like me. in the runup to the 2008 crisis, falling mortgages were often targeted to people of color. even african american hispanic br we ares with higher incomes than other borrowers found themselves in subprime products and then they had to pay for it later. these practices of discrimination stripped a generation of -- generation's worth of equity from communities that had fought hard for equal access to homeownership. borrowers with these higher cost loans were foreclosed on and almost -- at almost triple the rate of borrowers with standard 30-year fixed rates, almost
6:18 pm
triple the rate. and it's important, mr. president, when you talk about statistics and you think about these foreclosures, to think about the family that's foreclosed on, to think about the conversations at the kitchen table, to think about the discussion with sons or daughters who are teenagers about what's going to happen to them, changes in the school that they're going to go to, the different neighborhood, different sets of friends. all of these are about foreclosures. all of these are about evictions. that's just in the housing market. we know discrimination is a serious problem in all sorts of lending markets. it's why we created the consumer financial protection bureau to look after bank customers, to root out discrimination. but under rick mulvaney, the agency has been doing the opposite. rather than policing shady corporations, trying to get away with ripping off and discriminating against consumers, mulvaney gutted the office of the cfpb that was supposed to stop discrimination and lending. he disbanded the team that protected student loan
6:19 pm
borrowers. he canceled an investigation into the payday lending industry that preys on consumers and traps them in a downward spiral of debt. he exhorted a group of bank lobbyists saying you've got to lobby harder. you've got to go to people that you've got to give campaign money so they will listen to you. he's hired a bunch of political cronies, people like eric blankenstein and given them enormous salaries to run the bureau into the ground. we now know that specifically -- we know of one, the abuses look pretty common but we know of one. again, eric blanken seen who has a history of spewing bigoted views. he's still collecting a $260,000 paycheck from taxpayers. that's unacceptable. it is past time that eric blankenstein, i don't think i've ever gone to the floor and personally called out somebody and ask that they be fired. but when they have this kind of
6:20 pm
position, this kind of background, spewed this kind of hatred and we're paying him $260,000 of taxpayer money, that is morally outrageous. mick mulvaney, do your job. president trump, do your job. he should not be employed there. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate engage in its routine legislative wrapup as if in morning business during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on commerce be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4921 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4921, an act to require the surface transportation board to implement certain recommendations of the inspector general of the department of transportation. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill 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 unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 664 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk
6:38 pm
will report. the clerk: senate resolution 664, designating october 8, 2018, as national hydrogen and fuel cell day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the proposal at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, october 2. following the prayer and pledge, the executive journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate recess tomorrow from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. further, that notwithstanding rule 22, all time during leader time and recess count postcloture on the house message
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
119 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on