brian schatz from hawaii as well. prominently taking up that time, because what happened yesterday at that cloture vote that vote to end debate and move towards today's final passage, the vote that had all of that drama surrounding it start add clock of 30 hours, per senate rules that will bring us to 5:00. now, yesterday as i mentioned, a lot of republicans still on the fence. that outcome very much in doubt until about the 3:00 hour when susan collins took the floor, but other republicans had hemmed and hawed and in one case made up their might at the very last minute. >> i did not come to a decision on this until walking in to the floor this morning. i believe that brett kavanaugh is a good man. i believe he is a good man. it just may be that in my view he's not the right man for the court at this time. >> difficult decision for everybody. it really is. so, anyway, we did our best. >> confirmed tomorrow? >> i would think so. >> the facts presented do not mean that professor ford was not sexually assaulted that nigh

senator schatz. sen. schatz: thank you all for a great panel. i appreciate the plainspoken -ness of your expertise. that is appreciated by the public because we rely on this. the reason we are having a more robust conversation about a federal privacy law is because there is this california privacy law. it is forcing folks the table that have been so far hesitant to have this conversation about my analysis -- and it's informed by what i'm starting to hear -- is that some of the tech companies are really serious and want to do this and want to do this regardless of whether or not the california law gets amended. others are trying to figure out where and how they can do the minimum, which is to say if they can get the california law weakened, then they are going to back off their support for a federal privacy statute. i want us to all not pretend to not know that is happening. that is exactly what is happening. that is the context in which this negotiation is occurring. and so let me just go down the line. and the first question, in my view, is the

(tom schatz) the romance is based in a very lively antagonism that's a function of class.a rural-urban split. so it's about the differences between the genders. no. yes. no. yes. why do we keep coming back to the same kind of movies except to see those conflicts worked out in different ways? we want to see them animated in certain ways via stars, characters, story, and we want to see -- at least we want to see different types of resolutions. (tom schatz) what makes a genre a genre is that it quite literally works on cultural contradiction that simply can't be resolved. (susan seidelman) the characters are such good matches for each other, and the writing so intelligent, and characters so articulate that it's fun to watch them go at each other. been in hollywood long? long enough. trying to crash the movies? something like that. pretty hard to do, huh? i never got close enough to find out. sorry. who's being sorry? am i buying you the eggs, or are you buying me the eggs? just like to repay you. all right, introduce me to lubich. i might. who's lubich? drink your coffee. it

schatz: mr. mactaggart? mr. mactaggart: you need trust and check, and the check part needs to have stick with it as well. sen. schatz: let me start with you again on tech and telecom. they're sort of in a fight as to who is supposed to comply with what privacy laws. there are no angels. god bless them all. we have working relationships with all of them, but there are no angels. and they want rules for the other, but not for themselves. i wonder if you wouldn't mind spending a minute or half a minute talking about the need for whatever we do as federal laws to apply across platforms and business models. mr. mactaggart: any federal legislation needs to be strong, effective, and meaningful. as husband -- as has been said before, you do need a robust enforcement mechanism. i can see why the companies want this, but i think what you said is exactly right. my experience is in the cleanup bill in august in california was that there were a couple of tiny little words inserted that they try to say that this is just clari

senator brian schatz joins us now. what do you make of this strange, desperate, gross closing argument from the republican party? >> i think you hit it exactly on the head? it's strange, it's desperate, it's toxic, it's awful. what it shows is that the republicans realize that all of their actual ideas, both in terms of what they want to do in the future, in terms of cutting social security, medicare and medicaid, and in terms of what they've done over the last two years in terms of the largest upward wealth transfer in american history and the attempt to take away health care protections for people with pre-existing conditions, everything that they're actually for is totally unpopular so they're left lying about what they're for or trying to distract us with racism and xenophobia. >> you mentioned health care. this is my favorite little nugget from this campaign so far. there are a number of republican members who are running in competitive districts whose democratic challengers have been saying they're running to tak

schatz. mr. schumer. >> no. >>> mr. scott. >> aye. mrs. shaheen. >> no. >>> mr. shelby. >> aye. >>> ms. smith. >> no. >>> ms. stabenow. >> no. >>> mr. sullivan. >> aye. >>> mr. tester. >> no. >>> mr. thune. >> aye. >>> mr. tillis. >> aye. >>> mr. toomey. >> aye. >>> mr. udall. >> no. >>> mr. van hollen. >> no. >>> mr. warner. ms. warren. >> no. >>> mr. whitehouse. >> no. >>> mr. wicker. >> aye. >>> mr. wyden. >> no summ. >>> mr. young. >> aye. >>> with my friend the senator from montana, senator daines, who is walking his daughter down the aisle this afternoon, if he were present and voting, he would have voted aye. i have voted no. the pair will not change the outcome of the vote. i therefore withdraw my vote. >>> the senator has that right. >>> senators voting in, alexander barrasso, boseman, burr, capito, collins, corker, cotton, crapo, cruz, enzi, ernst, fischer, flake, gardner, graham, grassley, hatch, heller, hovan, hyde-smith, inhofe, isak son, johnson, kennedy, kyle, lankford, lee, manchin, mcconnell, moran, paul, perdue, portman, risch, roberts, rounds,

schatz. mr. schumer. mr. scott. >> aye. >> mrs. shaheen. mr. shelby. ms. smith. >> no. >> ms. stabenow. >> no. >> mr. sullivan. >> aye. >> mr. tester. mr. thune. >> aye. >> mr. tillis. >> aye. >> mr. toomey. >> aye. >> mr. udal. >> no. >> mr. van hollen. mr. warner. >> no. >> ms. warren. >> no. >> mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. >> aye. >> mr. wyden. >> no. >> mr. young. >> aye. >> senators voting in the affirmative, alexander, burasso, blunt, bozeman, burr, caputo, cassidy, collins, corker, cornyn, cotton, crapo, cruz, danes, enzi, earnest, fisher, flake, gardener, graham, grassley, hatch, heller, hovan, heightsmith, inhofe, isaacson, kennedy, kyle, lankford, mcconnell, moran, paul, perdue, portman, rish, roberts, rounds, rubio, sasse, scott, shelby, sullivan, thune, tillis, toomey, wicker, and young. mr. manchin, aye. senators voting in the negative. baldwin, bennett, booker, brown, cantwell, carden, casey, coons, duckworth, cortez masto, feinstein, gillibrand, harris, hinrich, kaine, klobuchar, leahy, markey, murkley, murphy, murray, nelson, peters, schatz, smith, stabenow, tes

senator schatz. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. we're here at least partly because a lot of you are worried very much about just gdpr and the california law so let's lay that out and you want something that you can work with so you don't have to navigate 50 different statutory frameworks. i understand that. and i think there is an opportunity to do something meaningful, but as mr. trouble said, we should make sure that we do something meaningful and i understand that from the standpoint of some of the companies, the holy grail is preemption and understand you're only going to goat there if this is meaningfully done and you only get there -- we won't get 60 votes for anything and replace a progressive california law. however flawed you may think it is, with a nonprogressive federal law. so the first question i have and it is a yes or no, do you think companies ought to take reasonable steps to prevent unwanted disclosures of data and that companies should not use data to the detriment of their customers. mr. cali, yes or no. >> yes.

what would i do andrew the schatz family?e absolutely going to buy -- i think we'll have a short-term rally from here for a couple of days or so we'll have another decline around the election. then i think we can have a much better rally last seven weeks of the year into 2019. >> very definitive >> you get the final word here take it on >> there's no reason i think in my humble opinion and with all due respect to our other guests, i don't think there's any reason why you have to have this >> fed is usually the proximate cause of the recession having said that, the fed is far from -- in my opinion, far from tight. fiscal policy and regulatory policy are extremely positive and you have not seen the supply side impacts of the tax cut that were passed last year. so that's very much on the common. >> you think the tax cut is not in the market? >> inno i don't think the supply side impact and productivity isn't in the market. >> you haven't seen it in capital spending because you haven't seen capital spending. >> it takes time to g

i believe you and senator schatz have found a great compromise with the legislation you have put forward. we are fully supportive of it. it will no doubt expedite f 5goyment 5 ofg in rur -- o in rural areas. mr. law: i would echo support and perhaps tie something that is not readily apparent. while the focus is on 5g specifically, it is heavily dependent on a rich and deep fiber network which provides -- fx providers such as myself. the ability to have the streamline act in terms of permitting will have a potentially direct impact not only on that level of broadband, but deployment as well. senatorbucharsen. thune: wicker. sen. wicker: i know everybody was delighted to see me. we had some problems with scheduling today as you might imagine and i understand there has been questions about the map, the challenge process and the fact there is additional time, but we still don't have a comfort level that this is going to get the right information to the decision-makers with regard to mobility funds. let me follow up on that to mr. spellmeyer. we be able to challenge all geographic areas presu

and the it swrier of snow politicians to take advantage and at the same time we should use nasty schatzed criminal cases contaken absert acuswraugzs pretty much saying what they say every time and they believe no evidence hads been mow plinted. >> after hundreds of climes gents a former campus doctor, the school is offering to settle. but some say it's not nearly enough. welcome to tide pods talk with gronk. i'm gronk! i'm big and awesome, but this guy is little, can it really clean? heck yeah it can! it's concentrated detergent plus stain fighters plus odor flighers that fight for clean. boom! even this entire bottle can't beat tide pods. and now a word from future gronk: ugh... tide pods. if it's clean, it's got to be tide. we've transformed this home to show the new keurig k-cafÉ brewer makes any house a coffee house. just pop that in for a coffee or brew a shot and froth milk for a latte or cappuccino. easy peasy. now she's a barista! it's so frothy. a little piece of heaven. thank you. but how's the coffee? a little piece of heaven. iyou may be at increased riskf for pneumococcal p

. >>> and libby schatz and london breed are concerned about the cracks in the beams at the transit center. the mayor isn't a all right to the metropolitan transportation commission demanding more oversight of the investigation. the mayors say public trust is at stake. they want an independent outside agency to examine the operation. >>> our time is 6:14, we have a result now of the new study how san francisco's tallest buildings will hold up in the major earthquake. the study includes the tallest buildings in san francisco. they want it find out if they have damage after the last earthquake. some of the buildings were built with the same welded stee 1994 earthquake that happened in los angeles. >> our bigger concern is the longer term recovery and when can we get people back in the residences and businesses back up. >> other recommendations include streamlining the response to quakand new regulations were proposed, the study was commissioned by the late san francisco mayor ed lee, it will be presented to the board of supervisors later this month. >> tonight's mega millions jack the is up

i believe you senator schatz have found a great compromise with the legislation you put forward. we are fully supportive of it and it will no doubt expedite deployment of 5g 5g and rural areas, so thank you. >> senator, or trench i would also echo support for it, and perhaps tie something to it that's not press is readily apparent. while the focus is on 5g specifically, as it relates to 5g, 5g is heavily dependent on a very rich and deep fiber network which affects provider such as myself. the ability to have the streamlined act in terms of the permitting and that aspect of other potential direct impact that only on the level of broadband but deployment as well. >> thanks. senator wicker. >> i know the chair is delighted to see me come into the room after everybody else has supposedly finished. we've had problems with scheduled today as you might imagine. i understand there have been questions about the map and about the challenge process, about the fact that there is at issue time, but that a lot of us are still, we still have a comfort level that this is going to get the right

schatz. >> no. >> mr. schumer? >> mr. scott? >> aye. >> mrs. shaheen? >> mr. shelby? >> ms. smith?> no. >> mr. sullivan? >> aye. >> mr. tester? >> mr. thune? >> aye. >> mr. tillis? >> aye. >> mr. toomey? >> aye. >> mr. udall? >> no. >> mr. van hollen? >> mr. warner? >> ms. warren? >> no. >> mr. white house? >> mr. wicker? >> aye. >> mr. wyden? >> no. >> mr. young? >> aye. stuart: they're tallying the votes as we speak. i was listening carefully. i'm sure you were too. sounded like a direct party-line vote. soon as we get the result, you will get it. we have to be rather quiet to make sure we don't miss it. we should tell you that lisa murkowski. >> senators voting in the affirmative. alexander, barrasso, blunt, bozeman, burr, capito, cassidy, collins, corker, cornyn, cotton, crapo, cruz, daines, enzi, ernst, fisher flake, gardner, graham, grassley, hatch, heller hoeven, high smith. inhofe, isaacson, kennedy, kyle, langford, mcconnell, moran, paul, purdue, portman, risch, roberts, rounds, rubio, save, scott, shelby, sullivan, thune, tillis, tumi, wicker and young. >> mr. manchin, ay

and i would thank david cleary on my staff and evan schatz on senator murray's staff. they are the chief on those issues. when they work together and senator murray and i work together, we often can get a lot done. on my staff, i especially want to thank grace stunts who was the policewoman on all of this, working with the various committees here, the various committees in the house, and her team andy, melissa, martha, curtis, taylor, brett, jim, they did a tremendous amount of work. also, lindsey sydman, allison bartman, jordan heinz, liz, taylor, ashton, elizabeth, christina, evan, and william hartzel. on senator murray's staff, john, andy, laurel, colin, madeleine, ally, katherine, lori, sherry, and remi brimm. we worked closely with the house of representatives. i called both chairmen, representative walton, representative brady, talked with them before we went ahead with this, and they worked seamlessly with us for the last several months. the chairman and ranking committees of the house who made contributions included walton, brady, goodlatte, fox, shuster, pallo

the children and media research act, and itor camra was bipartisan with senator collins, senator schatz, and senator bill it, -- bennett, among others, on my bill. a bipartisan commission would be established. 95 million dollar research initiative at the national institutes of health to examine the apex of technology and media on children. the bill will help produce on theh that sheds light cognitive, physical, and socio-emotional impacts of technology on kids. when kids scroll through instagram, their brains are stimulated. what is happening to their attention and critical thinking skills? we cannot afford to to be in the dark on these crucial issues. we also have to understand the physical consequences of kids' tech use, sleeping, eating, and exercise. last, the bill calls for research into the socioemotional consequences of children's tech use. how do mobile devices impact kids relationships with decision-making and social awareness? is there a connection between internet use and anxiety or addiction or even suicidal thoughts? we need to answer these questions, and we need them now.

. >> schatz a shaq-ism that makes sense. >> one of my sons, all of my sons, my oldest son is brilliant the dealership, get whatever car you want. he comes back with the paper for a mercedes benz, i pull him to the side, my man, i'm rich, we're not rich. >> i'm rich, we're not rich. >> not going to forget that one. pick another car. >> your father gave you this life lesson, never be satisfied. there is a story behind this with a trophy which i think is really interesting. >> yes, my father is a drill sergeant. he was the time of gentleman that you never questioned. so when i was young, let's say i went on a saturday, you know playing at the local boys and girls club. we celebrate the trophy will be there saturday. when i wake up on sunday, it will be gone. so never asked him why. so finally when i made it to the nba, i asked him, i said, why did you used to take my trophies when i was young? >> he said i never. ed you to be satisfied. and it actually worked. i'd come in oh, you took the football trophy. watch me get a basketball. you took the basketball trophy, watch me get a baseball o

. >> senator schatz? lots of qualified yeses and nose. that makes the maybes. next up is senator tester. >> i want to thank you all for being here today. by your testimony, i think that you believe privacy is important . i hear the conversation coming on, you're asking for some level of regulation that you can depend upon which i think is good. i guess the question is, are you doing everything you can do not to make sure -- you can do now, to make sure the privacy is protected? if you're not, why are you not the question becomes, i guess it is in the eye of the beholder what is private information and what is not. why aren't the companies doing it off to shoot? why are we looking to congress to pass laws to make sure the information is kept private? is it because everybody wants the same playing field or why is that? can anybody answer that? >> i think we are doing all we can is a company. i think there has been a lot that has happened this year. the clarity of a federal law, laying out a level langfield -- a level playing field makes sense. >> good. do any of

, feinstein, gillibrand, harris, heinrich, kane, klobuchar, layy, murphy, murray, nelson, peters, schatz wyden. mr. sanders no. mr. lee aye. ms. hasen, no. mr. jones. no. >> bill: collins is a yes, flake is a yes. democratic senator from west virginia, joe manchin is a yes. lisa murcowski republican from alaska is a no. if that holds, the cloture motion will pass and we will begin a 30-hour period where we will move ultimately to a debate likely around 4:00 or 5:00 saturday afternoon. back on the senate floor. >> miss heitkamp, no. mrs. mccaskill. no. mr. menendez, no. mr. reed, no. mr. king, no. mr. van holland, no. ms. hirono, no. mr. blumenthal, no. mrs. shaheen, no. >> bill: as we await the final tally we do know what the critical votes now that they have been cast and for the moment brett kavanaugh's nomination lives. >> sandra: keep in mind senators do sometimes,, they sometimes vote to bring the debate to a close which has been a indication from susan collins. she has announced she has voted yes but she is going to make a further announcement how she will vote tomorrow at 3:00 p.m

it improves child safety on commercial airlines, legislation that senator schatz from hawaii and i introduced to advance the safety of children who fly with their parents. this bill reauthorizes the f.a.a.'s essential air service program connecting rural programs to national systems, something important to many of us who represent rural states. it safeguards small airports in the sudden loss of commercial service. last congress i sponsored the small airport regulatory relief act that is included in this legislation. it is to make certain that certain airports would not lose federal airport improvement program funding due to inconsistent commercial service through no fault of their own. unfortunately, regional airlines continue to struggle because of lack of pilots, of a pilot shortage. and our airports and the traveling public ought not be damaged as a result of the inability of the airlines to hire a sufficient number of airline pilots. so it increases also the fairness and reduces regulations on general i have a reagan administration projects and activities. this is legislation that was ori

schatz: thank you, mr. president. the senate should demand a better nominee for the supreme court. these last two weeks have torn our country apart, but even before these allegations against judge kavanaugh became public, there was enough in judge kavanaugh's record to cause me to vote no. his record is clear. as a justice, he will damage women's rights, civil rights, the environment, voting rights, and economic fairness, and he will also damage native hawaiian self-determination. let's start with native hawaiians. in a "wall street journal" op-ed , he wrote that native hawaiians didn't deserve protections as indigenous peoples. he wrote an amicus brief in the case rice versus cayetano arguing that hawaii violated the constitution only permitting hawaiians to vote in the office for hawaiian affairs, the agency charged with working to advocate for the native hawaiian community. these views come from a lack of knowledge of the history of native hawaiians as well as federal law and policies related to u.s. indigenous peoples. based on nothing at all, he thinks indigenous peoples are j