it is a sad commentary on this committee. i've been honored to serve on this committee for over 40 years under republican and democratic leadership. process begun after watergate, done to make sure you have everything, but in place of the national archives, we are told we must accept a political lawyer, handpicking what documents the senate and the american people get to see. by any definition, the process is hopelessly conflicted. you wouldn't even be able to sell a story line for something like this for a movie or a television or a play, because it is too preposterous. by any definition -- look at the partisan lawyer is picking and choosing what we are going to see. he also represents steve bannon, reince priebus, and counselor mcgann in the russian investigation. he actually one time reported directly to judge kavanaugh on the white house. this lawyer is not even obligated to tell us what he is withholding and why. there is no requirement for privilege log. the process is so extraordinary that the national archives release

authorizes the committee to release documents and we put them on the committee website as quickly as we can. can --ontain restrictive material, keeps them on a confidential basis to enjoy the presidential review act, records act, requires to be kept public and does not become public. this is consistent with our practice in the gorsuch nominations where he received a presidential record act, restricting material on a confidential basis. if we agree not to receive some presidential records act restrictive materials at all, in other words, they didn't even come to the committee. when he explained his decision on a confirmation basis, they said he did so to permit prompt access to them, i simply don't understand any complaints about getting records here quickly. you cannot simultaneously complain about not needing more to review documents while also complaining we are getting documents are too slowly. to make as many documents as publicly available as quickly as possible. the following documents are already public. joined in on over 17,000 paces and materials. over 125,000 paces of execu

even worse at the moment one third of the documents the judiciary committee had are being deemed as committee confidential, in other words, we ask for all of the documents in the first said you are only going to get those of counsel, not those is that secretary event though there more important. then they had a republic in operative screen which counsel documents today sent to the judiciary committee and now senator grassley has said we can see all of those. he is saying the judiciary committee is making a determination that about 60000 can only be seen by judiciary committee members and only in private and not allowed to tell anybody what is in them. this is outrageous. i have to say senator grassley is somebody who's a decent man but he is not holding up the flag of the senate in an admirable way by what they are doing rudy giuliani yesterday declared that the united states might not comply with the subpoena and all the more reason that we need to know cavanaugh's record on these things because cavanaugh has said so many negative things about limiting presidential power in holding president

you were on the budget committee, big committee, science and the small business committee. we also read you tried to get a seat on the ways and means committee as well. >> a long time ago. i don't know why. i guess somebody told me it was a good thing to do probably back then, you know. i was on the budget committee at a really good time because we did the balanced budget and i always felt very good about that. it was like you did accomplish something and we stayed with it for, you know, four years or so, which was good. so that was a very good time. science, you know, the science committee if you really are into science or you have things in your district then that's a very important committee. i was more attuned to small business coming from a small business background and then science very frankly. and then i went on rules because, again, newt asked me to. the woman who was on rules was leaving and he wanted another female there so he asked me if i would do it. it really wasn't where i wanted to be, quite honestly, but i thought, well, this is good training, you know, i

with regard to the committee's business. i also want to argue address the argument that my carly on the judiciary committee, senior senator from illinois has made. a colleague believes judge kavanaugh misled the committee during his 2006, missionary when he said he was not involved in developing the bush administration's detention and interrogation policies. the senior senator pointed to a media report that described a 2002 meeting in the white house of which judge kavanaugh advised whether his former boss justice kennedy was except a legal argument about american citizens saccess to counsel. these allegations have no merit and here's why. offering advice on the potential success of a legal position digested by others meaning others in the white house staff kateri does not show involvement in developing detention and interrogation policies. multiple sources have confirmed that judge kavanaugh was not involved in developing detention and interrogation policies. moreover these allegations were ready to be referred to the depar

the rules and bylaws committee deliberated for over 80 hours, and i went to thank everyone on the committee, especially our distinguished cochairs. they deliberated for over 80 hours and produced a package that we will vote on shortly. this process has been inclusive throughout, and the rbc have been vigilant in ensuring everybody's voice was heard and every idea was given careful consideration. we spent a lot of time in this room yesterday and it was important because we wanted to make sure everybody's voice was heard. it is clear now that there is consistent on significant reforms, and as i listened yesterday, it seems to me there are two substantive issues that will require a vote in the body, and they both relate to the subject of superdelegates. the rbc proposal states that superdelegates retain all of their powers, except that they will not vote on the first , which was already decided by grassroot voters. it is a vote of significance. number one, does the change require a charter amendment? and number two, do you want to vote for reform? these are the two issues, folks. for four hour

it's not enough that members of our committee see these documents. the american people have a right to see them as well. it's been the practice one nomination after another in recent history as long as there's an production of documents. there's no classified countermeasure information protected by privilege. it should be made available in public to the american people. thank you. sen. schumer: senator blumenthal. >> or whitehouse. [laughter] en. schumer: i a i'm sorry. i'm pleased i made it to introduce to the next person that i introduced the wrong person. sen. whitehouse: for not having been attorney general with senator blumenthal, i take any confusion with him is a great complement. two of the most brilliant lawyers in the usa. so, we are now in a situation in which the best path for senators on the judiciary committee to get access to a nominee for the supreme court record is through the public process and the committee process, for senators on the committee have forced us to go to the foia route, which is available to the general public. that

material restricted by the statute is held committee confidential. while nonrestricted material is released to the public. i would like to add that all documents that we have received including committee confidential are at this very moment available to every member of the senate my staff is happy to make these documents available to any senator interested in reviewing them. my friends on the other side of the aisle complain then a lawyer by the name of phil bourque rather than the national archives is deciding what is considered restricted. that's not true at all. the archives have been reviewing judge kavanaugh's e-mails as i requested. these archivists are public employees on they have informed president bush and president trump that in the opinion of the professional arc files staff, nearly two thirds of these public servants have reviewed thus far contain restricted material that should not be released to the public. that means, under the same standard applied to justice kagan and justice gorsuch, the committee will have to holds two thirds of t

i have served on the judiciary committee for years. i know there are documents considered somewhat committee confidential. it is rare. usually a clae case you won't ae over. in this case, the republicans on the senate judiciary committee will be the final filter as to whether the american people will know the background of brett kavanaugh. why is there so much secrecy? why will they be made public? when elena kagan was asked to produce hundred 70 documents from the time she served in the white house, she produced everyone of them. how many did she exert executive privilege and say can't produce them? none. every document was turned over to the senate judiciary committee. with brett kavanaugh, i can't tell you what's going on. there's concealment which is impossible to explain. what would we find in the documents that have been carefully screened by mr. burke and then again by the senate judiciary committee and the republican majority? this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. we know the court is carefully divide

committee confidential. in other words, we asked for all of the documents. they first said you are only going to get those of counsel, not those of staff secretary even though the staff secretary are more important. then they had a republican operative screen which documents could be sent to the judiciary committee. now senator grassley has said we can't see all of those. he is saying the judiciary committee is making a determination that about 60,000 can only be seen by judiciary committee members, and only in private and they're not allowed to tell anybody what's in them. this is outrageous. i have to say, senator grassley is somebody who is a decent man, but he is not holding up the flag of the senate in an admirable way at all here. by what they're doing. rudy giuliani yesterday declared the united states may decide not to comply with a subpoena. all the more reason that we need to know kavanaugh's record on these things, because kavanaugh has said so many negative things about limiting presidential powe

the ways and means committee and appropriations committee, but people get on other committees and they really burrow in and get totally knowledgeable and have a real effect, so you never want to say one -- there's only a couple of important committees. all committees are important. such a difference between the authorization and the appropriation. people like nita worked on authorization, and an expert on it, and so you always -- people come very close to their committees, you know? and of course if you stay on a committee, it has a lot to do with your seniority. >> did you feel like the leadership at the time was looking to promote women and put them on committees, and was that something that you had a special eye looking out for? >> well, i think the women's caucus did at that time because that -- why did we make the appointment with tip? why were we talking among ourselves? i mean, we weren't truly represented in places that we had real interest in. >> tip's name has come up quite a few times. >> what? >> tip o' neil. how would you describe your relationship with him? >> good. he lo

this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. i want to thank senator merkley for helping to convene this hearing today and i'm grateful for our continued partnership on so many issues, senator. and i would also like to thank the senior senator from indiana, senator donnelly, as well as senator peters of michigan. the purpose of today's hearing is of course to review the nominations of five individuals for key positions. they include the following -- david t. fischer, nominated to serve as ambassador to the kingdom of morocco. the honorable earl robert miller, a career member of the senior foreign service to serve as ambassador to the people's republic of bangladesh. mr. daniel rosenblum, a career member of the senior executive service to be ambassador to the republic of uzbekistan, easy for me to say. mr. kip tom to be ambassador and u.s. representative to the united nations agencies for food and agriculture. the honorable david yamamoto, a career member of the senior foreign service, to be ambassador to the federal republic of

some committees. now when we got here as far as structural, the gym wasn't accessible to women. they had to make an adjustment physically to us. you know? in spite of them knowing that women were here, you'd think they would have made a small adjustment like that. saying women, may want to go into the pool, may want to go to the gym. they didn't do that. structurally you know to make sure there are a number of bathrooms. as many for women as for men. but they didn't do that. the private sector is ahead of them in terms of that so you know things are slowly changing here. you know, regular order means slowly changing. that's what it meant. so you know you finally had the reality of what that meant, yeah. >> you just said that you were president of your freshman class. how did that come about? was that something you campaigned for or did somebody recruit you? >> no. well, the reality that women were in a large number convinced several of us that a woman had a chance. and how it really came about i actua

host: leadership political action committees is our topic. meredith mcgehee is with issue one, the executive director there. taking your calls and questions. if you have not heard of them, maybe can learn a little bit more about them in the segment. the report issue one put out this year looks into these issues. why do this report now? guest: a lot of the money that comes into the leadership pacs -- nobody takes a look at. nor do they look at what leadership pac money is being spent on. we kept hearing on capitol hill these stories -- members of congress would say have you looked at leadership pacs? i hear these stories about how people are spending the money and i am shocked. the impetus to look at what was going on actually came from current members. they were hearing stories of other members and they started saying it and we said let's go look. we worked with the campaign legal center and the staff went through thousands and thousands of expenditures by these leadership pacs. we went back a number of years and looked at what they spent. wh

and you see, the authorizing committee is not the appropriations committee. but the authorizing agent committee is aware that as you open up this opportunity, more money will be required from the appropriation, and they were right. food stamps did cost. just like snap now costs. interesting how things change and become the same. right now they are trying to cut snap for poor people, billions of same thing when i was there. dollars. we give the poor folks too much. they didn't say it that way, but but that is what they meant. but at the same time they were asking me -- and all members of the committee -- would we authorize a buyout for tobacco farmers. authorize a buyout for peanut farmers. i had tobacco farmers in my district that i wanted to make sure they got all they needed. but at the very same time they were asking me to do that, they want it to cut poor folks out. some of those checks were for $5 million, $10 million. and average foodstamp hearse and doesn't get more than $2000 per year. if that much, depending on the number in the family. the audacity

on what committees. so kind of the way that it's done doesn't lend itself to looking at it from the perspective of having women on all the committees. i don't know how that changes know, the committee on both sides starts look at that. >> you have alluded to your own battle with breast answer and we are curious to know how that data with cancer changed or affected your career on the hill. >> it was a tough time. diagnosed, you know, when you are in politics you don't want anyone to know you're not hundred percent. you have to be strong all the time and all of that. i thought -- what do i do? pretty obvious i'm going to have to have treatment and be gone and whatnot. my husband and i talked about it and we decided that we would be open and honest and just say -- hey, i've got cancer, but we are going to beat it. so i went ahead and i had my surgery privately. and that i had a press conference at home. with my surgeon and my oncologist. i said -- you know, this is something that is very prevalent today, am

item two, standing committees. we have no meetings that have taken place as a last board meeting except for buildings and grounds and we announced all of the action items on the apps. forge, two membership organizations. does anyone have any updates on that? and the other reports by board members? vice president cook. >> i just wanted to wish everyone a happy first week of the year and on friday, i have been presuming my friday morning school sight visits. i would like to thank the tenderloin community school of san francisco and the chinese immersion school for welcoming me. i will be attending other schools this friday. also, on the first day of school , i attended wallenberg high school and another elementary school. i would like to thank them for welcoming me. the last thing is i'm a proud member of the san francisco mentor for success program. and my student is in the western indigestion. i got him a fortnight backpack to start the school year. apparently it grows in the dark which i did not know until he told

so i urge the committee to support joel. know he'll do great job, and i now that he will be very responsive to this committee and to all members of congress. chairman. mr. >> thank you, secretary lahood, for coming here and giving your voice to support terrific nominee and we appreciate it as always your any contributions to public service both as maybe of the house of representatives and as secretary of transportation. nelson, i'll now recognize you for an opening statement. okay. >> the three panelists today, gentlemen, welcome, congratulations on your nominations. willingness your to serve. morland, after your your experience managing as the majority leader security ical activities in the senate and activities, it's going to come in handy at nasa. as will your experience in reviewing programs and budgets in the senate appropriations committee. leahy irman, senator wanted to be here today to morhard also. senator leahy has a conflict so ask unanimous consent that the introduction of mr. orhard be included in the record. >>

judge kavanaugh has also submitted more than 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee committee questionnaire, which is the most extensive questionnaire every sent a nominee. the committee has also received hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from judge kavanaugh's service in the executive branch. this too is already more than any supreme court nominee before him and documents are continuing to be sent to the committee for review. chairman grassley is working tirelessly to make the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible and i appreciate and applaud his transparency. i recognize the politics and the purpose behind these creative but misguided attacks. and so does the american public. judge kavanaugh's experience and legal background are not in dispute. his readiness for the supreme court is not contested. his law clerks vouch for him. lawyers who argue before him commend him for his justice, judgment, his fairness, and his temperament. his peers admire and respect his intellect and draw regularly from his opinion. in short, he is a judge's judge. in fac

and where is our chairman of the judiciary committee? he says, oh, this is the best ever, then why aren't we getting such a log? what's his answer to that? i know he'll come to the floor and rail and rail, but the process, the actual facts are much worse than we have seen, and here's something new also being done by the chairman of the judiciary committee. one-third of the documents that we are getting, which is a small percentage of the total documents, are being deemed as committee confidential by the majority and have not been released. stacking an additional lay yor of -- layerer -- layer of secrecy. why are the other senators not on the judiciary committee being denied the ability to review so many of these documents that have been given to the judiciary committee? what are the republicans on the judiciary committee hiding? the monitor committee confidential sounds like just another way to shield judge kavanaugh's record from the eyes of the american people and the senate. we have no knowledge of why these documents are being withhe

that says that committee work matters, to be able to lead a committee, the interior environment and related agencies committee has been a very distinct privilege and an honor for me. these are areas that are clearly of interest to my home state when we talk about our nation's public lands, when we talk about support for our indigenous people and the agencies that support them, whether it's the b.i.a. or i.h.s. whether we think about the arts and the contribution of the arts to our nation, the issues that are within this subcommittee's jurisdiction are good, are important, and it's necessary that on an annual basis, we really work to advance these priorities. but we haven't been able to really advance them, not only not here on the full floor but actually through the full committee. it has been many years, it's actually been since fiscal year 2010 that we had an interior bill before the full senate for full consideration. so, again, truly a milestone here. so i want to -- i want to thank, as i have mentioned, chairman leahy and vice chairman -- excuse me. chairman shelby and vice cha

immigration committee.end . and the reason why was because shortly after the last federal election when i was appointed as opposition minister or shadow minister for citizenship and immigration, i had a man meet with me and what he said in my office changed my life because he told me about some of his relatives that had been in captivity and forced to eat their children that were boiled in front of them and he was a member of the community and about two weeks later i have the opportunity to meet with not transport who is not well known to the world yet and i have never sat with someone before who had been through that type of trauma and i just remember feeling even talking about it, this sense of -- just, we needed to do something. anger, disgust, but we needed to do something and we had meetings during the summer, we pushed a motion through in the house of commons and from there, we pushed subsequent studies. i pushed a subsequent study because i knew thesewomen weren't getting adequate support when they c

committee. in that position he helped develop and negotiate multiple appropriations bills which included funding for spaceflight, spacecraft control and nasa communications. as a testament to his reputation on senate appropriations committee, senator leahy submitted a letter of support for mister morhard's nomination in which he says, quote, based on mike spirits with jim on the appropriations committee, nasa can expect to have a deputy administrator who will push an agenda of common sense and cost-effective solutions. mister morhard's reputation for bipartisanship as well as his experience with large organizations will undoubtedly serve nasa well and i look forward to supporting his nomination. and mister zabat is uniquely qualified to the position he was nominated. he currently serves as deputy assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs, fulfilling responsibility so the position we humans nominated since january 2018. one of his primary response abilities was to develop policie

as my colleagues know on this committee and outside the committee, i have been asking for an oversight hearing within the epa administrator for many months. i'm pleased that our committee is holding that hearing today. i've got to be honest with you, that themore pleased person of the witness table is the acting administrator and not his predecessor. when mr. wheeler took the helm of the agency all of 25 days ago -- it seems like 25 months ago -- 25 days ago, "the washington post" noted that wheeler was noted for sipping organic juice infused with kale, for an acting administrator who collects coca-cola memorabilia. i have something to present to you as we begin this hearing to add to your collection, something that my staff found in the senate cafeteria that i thought you might like to have. it is a bottle of coca-cola that has the word "wheeler." [laughter] i don't know if there is a special deal, something in your life we don't know about. but this is your bottle. you probably need something strong here before we are finished. [laughter] sen. carper: but i'm encouraged that there wi

the authorizing committee is not the appropriation committee but the authorizing committee is aware that as you open up this opportunity, more money will be required. they were right. food stamps did cost. just like snap now costs. interesting how things change and become the same but right now they are trying to cut snap from people. same thing when i was there. they are giving poor folks too much. they didn't say it that way but that's what it meant. at the very same time they were asking me and all members of the committee, what about a buyout for a tobacco farmer or a peanut farmer? i had tobacco farmers that i wanted to make sure they got all they need but the same time they were asking me to do that they wanted to cut poor folks off. those checks were for $5 million . an average foodstamp person don't get more than 2000 a year if that much depending on member of the family. the audacity to think that i would sit there and allow that to happen. my conscience would not allow that. they said because there were women in the congress that it would support. she was in the agriculture so

they run the committee. they start on time -- well, relatively on time, but the notes are there, and i would not be able to do my job if i did not have the outstanding help of linda wong. so folks, i hope you will enjoy this moment. i'm excited to stand next to mayor breed to sign her first, my last, budget, and i just want to say congratulations to all the department heads that participate in this process, that come before the budget and finance committee, and they plead their case. i've tried to make the process fun and thoughtful and most importantly informative, and with that, i thank you. malia cohen. >> the hon. london breed: the last point i want to make as we sign this budget, i want us all to remember that we know that there's a lot of work to do. and the work that we do every single day can be the difference between someone's life and whether or not they make it. and that's why when you go out there, and you spend this money, make sure you remember that everything that you do for the city, it matte

oh, and as a committee report. i apologize. all right. madam clerk, item four, please. >> clerk: item number four is an ordinance allowing the planning code to allow payment for an inlieu fee for an a.d.u. street tree requirement. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. this is another one of our items and we had already gone over the a.d.u. legislation at the full board but had just severed out the portion regarding the street tree planting requirement because of a notification or notice issue at land use committee. but that was the only reason why and so the only portion before us today is that piece. so i don't know if you had any comments, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: well, i did, in general. i know we've had this conversation, and you and i unfortunately can't have conversations about this 'cause we send it to committee, but we've tried to have some dialogue publicly. i -- haven't worked at the bureau of urban forestry, i am a big proponent of planting trees, as i know you are, but this is incentivi

would it be appropriate for another committee in the house of representatives, the oversight committeediciary committee, for example, to take a close look at what has just happened? >> well, and that was the point i was about to make. not under intel committee but under judiciary or as you said perhaps government oversight. i think, though, the more effective way to oversee this and prosecute that is through the courts, through the southern court in new york city, as it has been placed. they are the ones who have the investigators, the expertise. it really is a court proceeding, not so much a political proceeding, which it would become if any one of the committees were to take and reopen this. would they have a responsibility for oversight? they have a responsibility to ask these questions. if they feel that's necessary, i wouldn't object to that. but i don't think it should supplant the judicial process. >> we know there was a judicial process under way during watergate and the nixon impeachment process, yet the house judiciary committee, they went full speed ahead and they opened up

in addition to the resolution, considered by the resolutions committee, the executive committee adoptedns, honoring the lives of -- lee ward boswell. ken carter. aretha franklin. and gone to our bob fraser. chair, it is my honor to approval of all these resolutions. thank you all very much. all in favor? thank you, mr. chairman. our last item of business, airport from the budget committee. who is going to be done that? is all three? ok. [inaudible] >> speaking of winning elections, we need money -- i'm the finance chairman -- >> i am the money out. i'm the treasurer. >> i tell them how to spend it. >> that is typically how it works. this is what we are up against. this is what the influence of an unlimited amount of dark money combined with an unethical presence in the white house looks like. this, his historic information, which we promised to you. transparency, that shows that we have never had to dollarhe rnc dollar for in order to win elections. this is, the energy that is created by the dnc in its leadership, including every single person in this room, over the course of the last y

the rules and bylaws committee deliberated for over 80 hours. i went to say a special thanks to everyone on the committee, especially our distinguished cochairs. jim roosevelt and lorraine miller. they deliberated for over 80 hours over a period of months and produced a package of proposed reforms that we will vote on shortly. this process has been inclusive throughout. in the urc and the rbc, they have been vigilant in an sure -- ensuring that everybody's voice was heard and every idea was given careful consideration. we spent a lot of time in this room yesterday and it was an important time, because he wanted to make sure that everybody's voice was hard. it is clear now that there is in fact, a consensus on a significant portion of the package of reforms. and quite frankly, as i listened yesterday, it seems to me that they are 2 substantive issues that are going to require a vote on the body. they both relate to this subject on superdelegates. the rbc proposal states that superdelegates retain all their powers except that they will not vote on

we have a joint committee. with ngos, citizenship canada and montrcal at the regional level and that has existed for 20 years and in fact it's the very same same committee. it's still alive, it continues to meet every three months. we have weathered so many crises together. i thinkthat's the solution . and i would propose to my ontario colleagues to adopt that system of communication. >> i do you have the same kind of collaboration in ontario? with this level of government, do, i almost know the answer but i want to have it there for the record. because it has worked well in qucbec and having been there, knowing how it works, i certainly believe it couldbe something we could share with other provinces . >> the qucbec model sound very intriguing. >> we don't have something similar in ontario. but i guess i should also say that the qucbec governments relationship with the federal government with respect to immigration is different and unique in canada comparedto what all the other provinces have . >> that's all i

social media oversight is not typically ben johnson about committee or any committee. i have no problem acknowledging that the terminology of this world, thoughts, spam, click-bait, trolls, does not always come naturally to all of us. but thanks to my tardisbipartis determination to understand what happened in 2016 and a commitment to stop it from happening again. we've been able to accomplish a lot. we've help to reveal the russian playbook. we've raise awarenessregarding the threat and we have succeeded . however incrementally, and pressuring each of these companies to take steps to address the problems on their platforms. that's the good news. the bad news is, we've got a lot more work to do. 21 months after the 2016 election and only three months before the 2018 elections, russians continue to infiltrate and manipulate social media to hijack the national conversation and affect americans against each other. they were doing in 2016, they are still doing it today. that was made evident just yesterday as the chairman noted when facebook announced the takedown of 32 ne

i'm katy tang, chair of this committee. today i'm joined by vice chair, jane kim, and catherine stephanie joining us to phillip for supervisor safai. we would like to thank sfgov tv. can we get a motion to excuse suspects safai from land use? >> so moved. >> clerk: make sure to silence all cell phones and recording defsh uses. and any documents to be in a file should be submitted to the clerk. items here will be on the july 31 supervisors agenda. planning 1, planning code, permit review procedure and zoning controls neighborhood commercial districts in districts 4 and 11. and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: colleagues, we already heard this item in land use. it's our pilot program to attract more businesses. today we have amendments to introduce in light of the process improvements legislation passed by the board of supervisors. there's been an entire reorganization of the planning code. and so the amendments i'm introducing today literally just put our legislation in the proper sections now given that c

on what committees. so the way it is done does not lend itself to looking at it from the perspective of having women on all the committees. i don't know how that changes, unless, you know, both sides start to look at that. >> you have alluded to your own battle with breast cancer. we were curious to know how that battle with cancer changed or affected your career, here on the hill. >> it was a tough time. when i was diagnosed, you know, when you are in politics, you don't want anyone to know you are not 100%. you have to be strong all the time and all of that. i thought, what do i do? because this is pretty obvious that i am going to have to have treatment and be gone. so we talked about it and decided that we would be open and honest and say, hey, i have cancer, but we are going to beat it. so i went ahead and had my surgery, privately. then i had a press conference at home, with my surgeon and my oncologist. they said, you know, this is something that is really prevalent today, among men as well as wom

on what committees. so kind of the way that it's done doesn't lend itself to looking at it from the perspective of having women on all the committees. i don't know how that changes unless, you know, the committee on both sides starts look at that. >> you have alluded to your own you have alluded to your breast cancer. rep. myrick: you don't want anyone to know you're not at 100% when you're in politics. i thought, what do i do, because it is obvious that i will have to have treatment, so my husband and i talked about it in said comeau have to be open and honest. i have cancer, but we are going to beat it. surgery,ead and had my and then i, i had a press .onference at home they said, we are going to have treatment and it will be fine. one of the television stations came to me and said, like to take your journey. i wasn't sure that was a good idea. i called up cokie roberts and said what do you think about this because i knew she would give me a fair assessment. she said i think you should do it, but you s

there is already a mountain of paper for our committee members to go through. the democrats want to make it be mount everest. let's not forget that judge kavanaugh is a 12 year judicial track record from his time on the d.c. circuit. during that time he offer more than 300 opinions and joined under is more. these opinions provide the most relevant information processing judge kavanaugh's legal thinking and whether or not he should be approved to be on the supreme court. so go back to something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said back in 2009 my democratic colleagues were making this very same argument with respect to justice soto mayor. of course they're flip-flopping now. the current minority leader said in 2009 that everybody knows that the judge's record on the bench is the best way to evaluate a nominee. he said quote i want to turn to your record on the bench which i believe is the very best way to get a sense of what your record will be on the bench in the future. then chairman leahy said quote from this is a long quote we have judge so

rules committee have a hearing or whatever they do regarding the shelter monitoring committees quarterly report. i guess my other situation is, the protections in the shelters systems are so weak over the past two to three years of me actually going to a shelter. i has been excessively abused and i am at the point with my situation with the shelters, that i would not recommend going to the shelter system and i have been a victim of violence between staff and the clients and it seems like nobody is trying to do anything to make any of these things better. i mean, i believe i have been to the local homeless coordinating board and the shelter monitoring committee, and it seems like there is no political wheel to make these shelters safe from the violence that i have received. it also seemed like there has been excessive and numerous contract violations and policy and procedure violations, and it seems like it gets swept under the rug like nobody is caring whether or not the contracts are being followed. [bell ringing] i am at the point where i believe the local homeless board is overtly and

committee -- a very influential committee. how are you able to get that assignment? helen: i guess you would say that i made sure the leadership knew that i wanted it badly. at that time i was running for governor, which would have been -- and i needed their help. -- and i needed their help to get it. and i got it. >> what was the reception like for you on that committee because there are only a handful of women that served? the reception was ok. i knew most of the other members. and i had known them. there was no animosity at that time. >> how important do you think it was to have women on committees like that, on appropriations? helen: i think it is important to have women on every committee. because they provide a good balance. no the present era, women longer feel intimidated if they speak up at such a committee and take a position. and that is a much better atmosphere than what we used to have. i have to ask about barbara, which -- i need to ask about barbara. too.s in nevada, helen: barbara and i are good friends. we bot

now that person is acting like the committee has never received committee confidential documents before. it's common practice, and it happened in previous supreme court nominees, even under democratic chairmen. so, to sum up, it is so regretful that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have politicized this process so much but also at the same time have short memories. i yield the floor. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that my fellow john price, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: mr. president, i rise to speak about the defense appropriations bill, con lating senators shelby p and others for putting together a very good product. for my home state it will give installations such as peterson,

after a year and a half, this used to be the oversight committee, the running away from oversight committee since trump took office. we do 0. i am surprised we are having this hearing today. i am shocked. because the republican effort has been to rally around the president even when he is wrong, even when he puts down publicly our intelligence agencies. even when he disses us and sides with vladimir putin. are you kidding me? are you kidding me? this is where we are now. this is a disgrace, a disgrace. that was a national embarrassment in helsinki. i was embarrassed that our president was siding against our intelligence agency and those people work hard, you will work with them, you work with the nsa, cia, you know the good work they do and our president through them under the bus in front of the world to side with vladimir putin. you have got to be kidding me. it is time to decide what you stand for. do you stand for democracy? or do you stand with the gangster in moscow? do you stand for the right of your people to have a clean and honest election? or do you want to cozy up to the preside

together on the appropriations committee. it really is a largely bipartisan endeavor. the personalities that run that committee do take a lot of pride in being able to work across the aisle. yeare clock runs out every a lot of times you will see the leadership of the house or the senate take over the appropriations process. which is in very good for the committee structure as a whole. if you watch and a lot of viewers will watch the hearings on c-span you may have noticed that this year especially even in the senate the interior bill was passed unanimously in the senate at the committee level and there's a lot of bipartisanship work that goes on. host: why don't the committees just get their work done earlier if they don't want leadership to step in at the end? guest: there's always the problem of getting time on the floor. senate has to do with a supreme court nomination or something like that. just's other things that happened to come along and take up time on the floor. all of the committees can work at once. but the floor