mr. blumenthal: thank you. mr. president, we are at a crossroads, a historic turning point for the united states supreme court and our country. this body is often called upon to

mr. blumenthal: thank you. mr. president, we are at a crossroads, a historic turning point for the united states supreme court and our country. this body is often called upon to consider court nominations for the district courts and the court of appeals. but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the united states supreme court, the highest court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come. when we are called upon to consider a supreme court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the court. ordinarily presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. and so ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values since they are unknown when we first hear their name. mr. president, we live in times that are the opposite of ordinary. these are

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i'm honored and grateful to follow the very powerful comments of my friend and colleague from arizona, and they remind me of our mutual friend, his colleague and partner from the state of arizona, senator john mccain. whom we miss at this moment more than ever. but senator mccain is with us in spirit. and those words remind us that the threat we face at this perilous time in our national history must be met with a truly bipartisan response. the threat that we face is every bit as serious as any in the history of this country because it involves an attack on the pillars of our democracy. 9/11 or pearl harbor involved a physical assault with immediate loss of life. russia's attack on this country in 2016 is every bit as serious and urgency. and the words of the national director of intelligence, our former colleague dan coats, should put us truly on alert. those blinking lights, based on objective and unvarnished evidence, as he put it, of a pervasive continuing attack should

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to, first of all, say how honored and grateful i am to follow my friend and distinguished colleague who has outlined some of the reasons that i will vote against this nominee. but i respect especially his raising this issue of the blue-slip approval process which is probably unknown to the vast majority of americans. so let me begin as a member of the judiciary committee, as a litigator who has spent about 40 years in the courtroom for federal, state judges of all kinds all over the country, why the blue slip from a united states senator matters to justice. we debated this issue in the judiciary committee as a time-honored tradition that senators be consulted, that they return a blue slip -- that is approval of a nominee -- from their states. and that is because senators like senator merkley and senator wyden are rooted in those states. they know the lawyers. many of us are lawyers. they know the colleagues of people who may be nominated to

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i want to thank my colleague and friend from florida for his leadership on this profoundly important and imminently threatening issue of public safety and, as well, my colleague from new jersey for his very important leadership; also senator markey of massachusetts. we have joined together in this cause to prevent a new wave of lethal gun violence on our streets and communities, resulting from these plastic, undetectable and untraceable weapons. we're talking about assault rivals, pistols, -- rifles, pistols, shot guns. all of them homemade. they are ghost guns. they are the new frontier and new face of gun violence in this country. our colleague from utah raised a first amendment objection. the fact is that the courts are dealing with that objective. it is the basis of a challenge brought by a group that so far has failed in the courts to stop this public health regulation. no right is absolute. the first amendment is not absolute. the idea of crying fire in a moviehouse i

ell, blumenthal: mr. sh have you talked about some of these line items? , some of themm have been raised before, and we continue to brainstorm solution. sen. blumenthal: how has the u.s. olympic committee received the suggestions? >> they have engaged on some of those reforms. for the athlete working group to begin, it has been assembled but i have not received information on when it will work. sen. blumenthal: nothing has happened? >> not that i have seen. sen. blumenthal: thank you. >> we are going to try to conclude this hearing and the near future, senator hassan, you are recognized. thank you, and thank you for the continued attention to sexual abuse in the olympic system. i also want to thank all of the survivors again for not only being here today, but for everything you have done to publicfocus the greater hurt and treatment you have experienced. i am grateful that your harrowing stories are finally being heard. you. thanks to the persistence of these men and women and the tireless work of journalists like at the indianapolis star tribune, they mad

senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. in a deposition in 2017 robert former president of usa gymnast says that usag would investigate allegations of child sexual abuse only if the organization had received a sign written statement that was quote unquote corroborated. end quote. so that means to me that any of these young athletes, as girls or teenagers, would have been required to sign a statement then have it kroeb -- corroborated by someone else for usa gymnastics to even consider an investigation. is that correct? ... >> that's according to robert, president of the organization. >> i cannot speak on him. >> let me ask you this. the current code of ethical conduct, which was last updated april of 2016. during your tenure as a senior vice president, says that i'm not going to read the whole paragraph, but essentially, any complaint quote, must be signed and state specifically the nature of the alleged misconduct. in other words, it has to be in writing. has to be signed. there is no indication that has been revoked. corr

. >> senator blumenthal. >> mr. engler i want to be fair to you and give you a chance to go back to your previous answers. the comments made by caley lawrence was were in public comment session, she recounted that conversation and you deny that the meeting with her, without her attorney in which you offered money took place, correct? >> i did not deny there was a meeting. she waited some 45 minutes with her mother to meet with me and i, along with two women who are on my staff, carol and emily, did meet with her. >> but there was no discussion-- you deny discussion of payment? >> no, our discussion is what is it among all the actions we have taken many of which are in my written testimony, is there anything else that from the survivor perspective could be done, and the discussion was how do we hear from people about what is it that might help. . >> so no discussion of money? i want to be absolutely clear. >> no discussion. we were in settlement talks, there would be no point in having a settlement with a single vict

blumenthal? >> i want to ask mr. chairman that we put in the record the article i referenced earlier from the "orange county register." dated yesterday. >> without objection. >> and just point out that, ms. perry, it says that no notice of these individuals' suspension was provided. is that true? >> senator blumenthal, i checked in with that this morning and was told notice was given through both an e-mail and a first-class mail. >> so, you're saying that -- that terry gray worked with the club in southern california and did so with notice despite cathy straight, the director of that club saying, "no notice was given to us or terry from usa gymnastics prior to the list going out online"? >> i apologize, senator. i was told this morning, because i quickly checked into that to make sure that notice was, because that's part of our procedure, and i was told positively that both an e-mail and a letter was sent out. >> so that's just not true. that statement. first statement. >> i was told that they were sent out. >> you k

blumenthal. thank you, mr. chairman. my apologies for being late. i was involved on the floor in a and aous consent effort, want to ask at the outset that statements from two of our , let harris and dianne feinstein both be included into the record. their views, and i agree with them, that a reorganization of of veryh circuit is questionable, if any value. it would prompt inefficiencies and put up obstacles that are unnecessary, disruptive, and massively expensive. from this summer's hearing on this topic make the and i-- makes it clear, feel this hearing will affirm that the and i want to welcome alsoitnesses today, and judge sidney thomas, the chief judge of the ninth circuit who is in the audience today. he has been steadfast in defending the circuit. we are honored to have you. i will keep my remarks short, but i do want to add how deeply troubled i am, i think that is putting it mildly, by the stance and approach of our chairman, and in effect cutting short and to elementsr access that are absolutely essential for us to fairly assess the oford

i introduced the legislation with senator blumenthal, spy car act, that directs nhtsa to establish federal standard to secure our cars. mr. kildare, do you believe it would be helpful, nhtsa, national highway safety traffic administration, created a cybersecurity certification program for vehicles, similar to nhtsa five-star automobile safety rating system? the program would reward manufacturers install best protections and make consumers informed decision on purchasing riding vehicles? >> absolutely. i believe the benefits we've seen from the nhtsa five-star program how we encourage competition in the goal of getting safety at the forefront. the same thing with the cyber dashboard, looking at cybersecurity. we want to see it move towards regulation at the end. we've seen that happen out of the five-star program as well. >> now, consumers how many miles per gallon? oh, we can see that. what is the safety rating? they can see that. going forward, this cybersecurity protection is also going to be increasingly important because it's a computer riding down the street. and there is a sinister side to cyber base. it is best of

mr. chairman, it is clear the folks before us now are not the shot callers. orders. following they are carrying out a policy that was not of their own making. i was heartened that when senator blumenthal asked the question of eliciting anyone to raise their hand in dissent of this policy that was about separating children from their families, none raised their hands. that being said, i think we need to call this policy what it is. it is a policy that is about the united states government committing a human rights violation. i will repeat what i have said weeks ago. those who created this policy and implemented it including secretary nelson should step down because this has been a policy that has not only retell like -- not only havocd have a -- wreaked but it will cause the children harm and damage. that being said, commander white, as of today, what is the current number of parents outside the country who are separated from their children and have yet to be reunified? don't give me the number 431 because that was the number from last thursday. 'am, we don't have the parents but we have the children. i will talk about the number of children who have their parents departed. 81 of those

mr. blumenthal: thank you. madam president, there are few responsibilities -- i would say none more important than our duties in connection with the appointment of a united states supreme court justice. much is at stake in the nomination that is before the senate now to appoint judge brett kavanaugh as the justice who will replace justice kennedy. so much is at stake. the future of roe v. wade, affordable health care, particularly preexisting conditions, and the protections of them for millions of americans. but i'm not here to talk about judge kavanaugh as a nominee. i'm here to talk about how we reach a conclusion, how we vote. my colleagues and i. how we seek and pursue the truth about judge kavanaugh, his qualifications, his temperament, his integrity and intellect, who he is, and what kind of justice he will be. and the best way to do it is to know what he has written and said, all of his writings and opinions, the articles that he's written. these points are pretty basic. i am struck by our colleagues' ob

mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you. mr. president, we are at a crossroads, a historic turning point for the united states supreme court and our country. this body is often called upon to consider court nominations for the district courts and the court of appeals. but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the united states supreme court, the highest court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come. when we are called upon to consider a supreme court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the court. ordinarily presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. and so ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values since they are unknown when we first hear their name. mr. president, we live in times that are the oppos

blumenthal, donnelly, hirono, kaine, king, heinrich, warren, peters, and brown. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate resumes executive session. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, this past year and a half of the trump administration has been a constant daily barrage of scandal, corruption, and chaotic incompetence. and in this environment, the senate now considers the president's controversial nomination of brian benczkowski to lead the criminal division of the united states department of justice. it has been over a year since benczkowski was first nominated, and there have been repeated calls for his nomination to be withdrawn. why this man for this job at this time? there is a very good chance that something fishy is happening here. the warning signals of something fishy should be evident to democrat and republican senators alike. the obvious question is whether president trump and his political and legal team a