senator whitehouse: mr. harrell. mr. harrell: i agree with dr. lewis. china dominating the whole ecosystem. senator whitehouse: the need risk. mr. harrell: the national security risk is real particularly with the denial dr. lancey talked about. that said, i think that probably there are going to be ways to partially engineer around some of that risk. so you wouldn't see the total shutdown in a worst case scenario. senator whitehouse: let me close out with an a appreciation to csis for the work that they have done in this space. they had a brief lapse of judgment and let me be the democratic co-chair of their latest cyberer report before president trump was inaugurated. they do report to the incoming president. unfortunately doesn't seem to have much effect because i don't think the administration has come to us with any legislation. i can't resist seeing dr. lewis here both to, a, express my appreciation, and also to express my hope because chairman graham has been very thoughtful and attentive and interested in these issues that we can find a way to bre

mr. whitehouse. >> and the biggest tragedy is that we are now hopelessly divided onhe last thing that usedhich is our judicial system. now there's nothing that pulls us together. nothing. >> narrator: kavanaugh, gorsuch, thomas, alo, roberts-- the federalist society and mitch mcconnell now dominate the supreme court. >> you talk about the warren orcourt or the burger courhe roberts court, we're living in the era of the mcconnell court now because he did what heid. and it very well could be the decades to come.for several >> clarence thomas doesn't want to serve on the high court anymore. >> clarence thomas comfortable retiring now, and there's aot couple ors... >> surgeons today removed two malignant nodules from supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg's left lung.he >>5 year old is said to have fractured three ribs... >> rbg's health has become the subject of much attention in recent years... >> go pbs.org/frontline for frontline's latest transparency oject, and explore the dozens of interviews in "supreme revenge." >> imean walked up to capitol hill... (makes explosion sound) >> it was

senator whitehouse: mr. harrell. mr. harrell: when i look -- sen. whitehouse: you are not mic 'd up. i just want an answer. : i think it's a bazooka, but for most foreign governments looking at this, it is a car. that's a fundamental issue we have to grapple with. sen. whitehouse: let me ask each of you, and just because your name is clancy, let me start with you. each of you, what is a plausible worst case scenario that we would face from the 5g huawei risk? dr. clancy: i think the worst case scenario is part of a global conflict. china is able to completely control the internet and fundamentally cripple our ability to do command and control in a major combat operations. senator whitehouse: dr. lewis. dr. lewis: the worst case can be huaweiould dominance, which would damage our ability to be innovative and chinese control of the telecom networks that would allow them to disrupt critical services. senator whitehouse: they could start writing programs and code and conduct their business in such a way american companies were effectively frozen out or -

mr. chair, senator whitehouse, as little as possible. in fact, we've made it even easier for small employers. initially our design had the employer providing notice to employees and asking them whether they want to opt out. we've changed that. and in fact, our record keeper, a census, now does that. essentially, all the employer has to do is provide the employee information to a census and then facilitate, as they do, with any other withholdings over time. >> once they've set up the withholding and they know what their employee wants, it gets disclosed to them, they're done. >> that's right. and mr. chair, senator whitehouse -- >> what's the response been from the small business community? >> generally positive. in fact, i was thinking of that when senator danes was asking his question. there are a lot of small employers who very much like this and are focused on running their business. there's one in my mind who runs an iconic sandwich shop who says i don't have an hr department, i got sand chiwiches to make. they view it as a very posi

mr. benchkowski? >> yeah. he was the head of the criminal division but apparently they discussed it with the career ethics official and they made the recommendation. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple timing questions. you said that on march 5th mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an -- >> -- right. >> on march 24th, he sent out a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th, you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the principle associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that

mr. benchcowski. >> yeah, he was the head of the criminal division but apparently they discussed it with the career ethics official and they made the recommendation. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5th mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an obstruction -- >> right. >> on march 24th you sent out the letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the

. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5th, mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> he was not going to make an obstruct on march 24th, you sen the letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and 24th, you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the principal associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special counsel's office. they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. right after march 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would view. >> you made the decision when? >> probably on sunday, the 24th. >> that was the day the letter came out. >> yes. >> you didn't make the decision until the letter came out. you must have told somebody how the write t

. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5th mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an obstruction -- >> right. >> on march 24th you sent out the letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the principal associate deposit and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special counsel's office. so they had knowledge of a number of episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so right after march 5th we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would -- how we would -- >> and you made the decision when? >> i probably -- on sunday the 24th. >> that is the day the letter came out? >> yes. >> you make the decision until the letter came

. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple timing questions. you said that on march 5th mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an -- >> -- right. >> on march 24th, he sent out a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th, you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the principle associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special counsel's office. so they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so, right after march 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we -- >> and you made the decision when? >> probably on sunday the 24th. >> that's the day the letter came out? >> yes. >> you didn't make the decision until the letter came out? >> no. >> you told s

. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5th, mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> he was not going to make an obstruct on march 24th, you sen the letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and 24th, you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the

whitehouse. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the panel for being herement we obviously see the problem of small and medium sized businesses trying to figure out how to manage a retirement savings plan and the difficult of that difficulty that 90% don't. which means that small business states like rhode island are often left with very little retirement savings. we also have the lesson, i believe, from the 401(k) plans to opt in versus opt out as a simple default switch can make a very, very big difference and help people out for the record, i see the heads all nodding just to be clear about that. i wanted to ask miss ross first, you mentioned my ira bill in your bill and i appreciate that. describe what you like in context of doing something, what are the key features you want to see in any bill that the committee would support for aarp to support that measure. >> the federal auto ira. it's very important that people have the ability easily to enter into the ira. that their investments are, have fiduciar

not be influenced by an improper consideration politically or otherwise thank you mr attorney general. senator whitehouse told have to those began eleven forty five will do senator whitehouse and why don't we just come back. an hour later will break break for an hour and do those and have lunch so a white house thank you chairman attorney general you had a conversation with chairman graham earlier this morning which you describe the importance of to use chairman graham's words hardening our electoral infrastructure against foreign election interference i ask you is anonymous election funding an avenue for possible for an election influence and interference yes. let's turn to the march twenty seventh letter which you received and read march twenty eighth the mahler letter. correct yes. when did you have the conversation with bob mueller about that letter that you've referenced i think was on the twenty eighth same day that you read it. when did you first learn of the new york times and washington post stories that would make the existence of this letter public the ones that came out last night i think it

mr. bingcowski? >> right. yeah. he was the head of the criminal division, but before -- apparently they discussed it with the career ethics official, and they made the recommendation. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. chairman, mr. barr, a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5th, mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction, leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an obstruction. >> right. >> on march 24th, you sent out a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th, you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the principle associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special counsel's office. so they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so right after march 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were, and how we would -- >> and you made the decision when? >> probably on sunday, the 24th. >> that's the day the le

mr. attorney general. chairman graham: senator whitehouse, i'm told we are going to have two votes beginning at 11:45. we'll do senator whitehouse and just come can back an hour later. we'll break for an hour. and do the votes and have lunch. senator whitehouse: attorney general, you had a conversation with chairman graham earlier this morning which you described the importance of, to use his words, hardening our electoral infrastructure against foreign election interference. i ask you is anonymous election funding an avenue for possible foreign election influence? and interference? atty. gen. barr: yes. senator whitehouse wlon let's your honor -- senator whitehouse: let's turn to the march 27 letter, march 28, mueller letter, correct? atty. gen. barr: yes. senator whitehouse: when did you have the conversation with bob mule ber that letterer? atty. gen. barr: on the 28th. senator whitehouse: same day you read it? when did you first learn of the "new york times" and "washington post" stories that would make the exis ens of this letter public, the one that is came out last night? atty. gen. barr: i thi

mr. attorney general. >> senator whiteple house -- we'll do senator whitehouse and why don't we just come back an hour later. we'll break for an hour and do the votes and have lunch. >> thank you, chairman. attorney general, you had a conversation with chairman graham earlier this morning which you described the importance of hardening our electoral infrastructure against foreign election interference. i ask you, is anonymous election funding an avenue for possible foreign election influence. and interference. >> yes. >> let's turn to the march 27th letter which you received and read march 28th, the mueller letter. >> uh-huh. >> correct? >> yes. >> when did you have the conversation with bob mueller about that letter that you've referenced? >> i think it was on the 28th. >> same day you read it? when did you first learn of the "new york times" and washington post stories that would make the existence of this letter public, the ones that came out last night? >> i think it could have been yesterday, but i'm not sure. >> when they contacted you to ask for any comment? >> they didn't contact me. >> contacted do

senator whitehouse a couple of : timing questions. you said that on march 5, mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction, leave that to you. atty. gen. barr: he didn't say he was leaving it to me. senator whitehouse: but he was not going to make an obstruction. on march 24, you set up a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5 and march 24 you made that decision. when was that? atty. gen. barr: we started talking about it on march 5. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5 involving the deputy, the principal associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special's counsel's office. they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so, right after march 5, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would proceed. senator whitehouse: you made the decision when? atty. gen. barr: probably on sunday the 24th. senator whitehouse: that is the day the letter came out. atty. gen.

mr. president, i want to thank representative l uan for partnering with me and i want to thank senators whitehouse, kaine, and schatz. and i want to thank jeff bingaman of new mexico who first worked in a bipartisan way on a clean energy standard bill that was a template for our effort today. and i want to thank the scientists and economists who provided thoughtful analysis as we developed this bill, most prominently resources for the future and president obama, secretary of energy ernie monize. i am eager to get our policies moved forward. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday the senate judiciary committee held a very important hearing on how we can bring down prescription drug prices for american families without sacrificing the innovation that has made our country a world leader in new drug development. that's quite a challenging balance to strike. as i traveled my state, i've heard from my constituents about their increasing inability to get their hands on the medications they

mr. mitchell, you had brought this up. i will have a bit of a disagreement with my colleague, senator whitehouse, on this issue. i think he pharmacy benefit managers are big players in this debate. their business practices need to be part of the debate. if we are going to look at drug pricing. pbm's negotiate the price on behalf of the health insurance ,lans and they strike deals determining the availability of prices of prescription drugs for more than 266 million americans. i have got a lot of questions about how many patients benefit from what they are doing. the different pbm practices that are there tanned, and my opinion, to lead to higher prices for consumers, rather than cutting the price to the consumer. i would love to hear your comment on that. >> i think it is important to remember that the only people who set those prices are the pharmaceutical companies. practicesat pbm abusing secret rebates, for which there is a safe harbor under law because they are kickbacks, is a bad practice. i do not think it works on behalf of patients. we should remember that pharmacy -- pharmaceutical companies set the l

mr. attorney general. >> senator white house i'm told we are going to have two votes beginning at 2:25. we'll go senator whitehouse and why don't we come back an hour later? break for an hour, do the votes and have lunch. senator white house. >> you this, chairman. attorney general, you had a conversation with chairman graham earlier this morning in which you described the importance of, to use chairman graham's words, hardening our electoral structure against foreign interference. i ask you, is anonymous election funding an avenue for possible foreign election influence and interference? >> yes. >> let's turn to the march 27th letter, which you received and read march 28th, the mueller letter. >> mm-hmm. >> correct? >> yes. >> when did you have a conversation with bob mueller about that letter that you referenced? >> i think it was on the 28th. >> same day that you read it? when did you first learn of the "new york times" and "washington post" stories that would make the existence of this letter public, the ones that came out last night? >> i think it could have been yesterday, but i'm not sure. >> when they cont

whitehouse. >> a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5, mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction, leave that to you. atty. gen. barr: he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> but he was not going to make an obstruction. on march 24, you set up a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5 and march 24 you made that decision. one was that? atty. gen. barr: we started talking about it on march 5. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5 involving the deputy, the principal associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special's counsel's office. they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so, right after march 5, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would -- >> you made the decision when? atty. gen. barr: probably on sunday the 24th. >> that is the day the letter came out. atty. gen. barr: yes. youou made the decision -- did not make the de

mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, on tuesday "the washington post" published an important piece of investigative journalism. the journalists looked into a very narrow, very wealthy group of special interests seeking to control our federal judiciary. it was a revealing story, one that matters a great deal to the senate and to the people we serve. i come to the floor today to discuss that tightening special interest grip on our courts. the central operative in this court-fixing scheme is leonard leo of the federalist society, the organization at the center of this effort. as i described here on the senate floor several weeks ago, there are three incarnations of the federalist society. the first is a debating society for conservatives. at law schools they convene panels and forum or like-minded aspiring lawyers to talk about conservative ideas and judicial doctrine. that's all fine. the second is a flashy washington, d.c., think tank. they attract big-name lawyers and scholars and politicians, even supreme cou

mr. whitehouse: right now the dark money groups behind the federalist society judge-picking operation, they're probably also behind those amicus briefs. a littletransparency and we'd know. it's through these amicus briefs that the judges who were selected and confirmed by these folks get instructed on how they should rule. this is a recipe for corruption. the court itself should require real transparency from so-called friends of the court. these amicus groups come in under a supreme court re su rul requires them to disclose who paid for the brief. but who's really behind the group? we don't know. the supreme court could correct that. it could correct it like that. but then it would start to expose who's here. so if the court won't, congress must. democracy dies in darkness, it has been said, and so does judicial independence. the american people deserve to know when powerful special interests are paying to sway federal judges with self-serving legal advice, and if those same interests paid to get those judges selected and paid to campaign for their confirmation and then paid to have the amicu