[Pages S5027-S5044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Andrew
S. Oldham, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week the Senate continues to
confirm impressive nominees whom President Trump has asked to serve our
country. We have confirmed two Assistant Secretaries to the Department
of Education, Scott Stump and James Blew. We have confirmed a member of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Randal Quarles. Now we
will turn to the judiciary and consider nominees to the Fifth Circuit
and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
First is Andrew Oldham of Texas, the President's choice for the Fifth
Circuit. Mr. Oldham has impressed the legal community in his years of
public service, most recently as general counsel to the Governor of
Texas.
Mr. Oldham has degrees from the University of Virginia, Cambridge,
and Harvard Law. He clerked on both the DC Circuit Court and the
Supreme Court. He carries the highest possible rating from the American
Bar Association, ``unanimously well-qualified.''
He comes highly recommended by peers and colleagues from across the
political spectrum. Judith Zaffirini is a Texas State senator. She is a
Democrat. She wrote the Judiciary Committee to support Mr. Oldham's
nomination ``confidently, enthusiastically, and without reservation.''
She and the nominee have worked together on a number of important
subjects. Through them all, she explains, ``Mr. Oldham reflected the
ideal qualities of a judge . . . open-minded, fair . . . thoughtful and
analytical.''
Lisa Blatt is a skilled litigator who argues frequently before the
Supreme Court. She is also a Democrat. She wrote the committee too. Her
letter describes Mr. Oldham as ``a great listener'' with ``a brilliant
legal mind, [and] a wonderful sense of humor and collegiality.''
Her conclusion? He would ``make a superb judge.''
What about Mr. Oldham's own words? If confirmed, he explained to our
colleagues during his hearing, he will ``uphold the rights of all
litigants--big or little--equally, and apply the law to all fairly.''
He understands his responsibility, clearly. I look forward to
confirming this nominee, and I urge each of our colleagues to join me.

Economic Growth

Mr. President, on another matter, it has been a year and a half since
Republican majorities took their seats in Congress and a Republican
President was sworn in. In 2016, the American people made it clear it
was time to try something new. They were tired of a so-called recovery
that focused overwhelmingly on big, wealthy metropolitan areas. They
had seen enough of tax hikes and top-down regulations that held their
communities back. They turned to Republicans to deliver a pro-growth,
pro-opportunity agenda to create better conditions for working
families, job creators, and entrepreneurs to rise together.
Eighteen months later, the results could not be clearer. Today, more
people say it is a good time to find a job than at almost any point
since the turn of the millennium. U.S. manufacturers are more confident
than ever about the future of their businesses.
Here is a story from yesterday's Financial Times: ``US retail sales
rise for fifth straight month in June.'' This is a good sign for
Americans all across the board. It shows our economy is healthy. It
shows that families feel they have enough breathing room to

[[Page S5028]]

make purchases, which of course then benefit the companies and workers
who produce what they are buying. Of course, it is especially good for
the 42 million Americans whose jobs are supported by the retail
industry.
According to industry data, more than 6 in 10 Americans work in
retail at some point in their career, so this continued prosperity is
really significant. There is little question that tax reform is to
thank for a significant portion of this progress.
For one thing, our middle-class tax cuts are directly boosting
families' discretionary income. As the Wall Street Journal reported
this week, ``many households are experiencing less withholding from
their paychecks thanks to the tax overhaul.''
Analysts also point to the business side of tax reform, which is
letting more U.S. employers expand and hire. That means more jobs for
American workers, which means more income for American families, which
means more money in the cash registers of American small businesses.
The virtuous cycle goes on.
The American people and most fair observers are marveling at what our
economy is delivering to workers and middle-class families, but I am
starting to think our Democratic colleagues may have forgotten what a
successful economic agenda looks like because even in the face of
headline after headline and testimony after testimony from job creators
we represent, they try to brush off this impressive growth as nothing
serious, and they advocate for repealing or undoing the Republican
policies that are helping to make it happen.
Fortunately, Republicans know full well how to cut taxes, trim back
regulations, and get Washington out of the American people's way. It is
just what we have done. It is just what we will continue to do.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

Trump-Putin Summit

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, President Trump went through a
walk back. President Trump's walk back performance was pathetic. It was
weak, insincere, and thoroughly unconvincing. The President read a
scripted clarification yesterday like he was in a hostage situation.
All you had to do was look at his face. He couldn't even fully commit
to it, adding off-the-cuff that other people could also be responsible
for election interference in 2016. That is hardly a walk back, and it
was concerning only one particular comment. The President did not
address his lavish praise for Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. Is he going
to walk that back? He blamed both countries--the United States and
Russia--for the sour relations between us. Is he going to walk that
back? He said U.S. stupidity and foolishness, not Russian aggression,
was the reason our relationship with Russia was so bad. Is he going to
walk that back? He did not address his brazen attacks on the FBI while
on foreign soil. Is he going to walk that back?
Now, late last night and this morning, the President is back to
celebrating his meeting with Putin. He is walking back the walk back.
That is what he did this morning. This is like Charlottesville redux.
We all know what the President really thought. We know what he thought
at Charlottesville. The walk back was unconvincing, and he went back to
his old ways. We know what he thought at Helsinki. The walk back was
unconvincing. And now, with his tweets this morning, he is back to his
old ways.
The only reason there was a walk back is that the President was
forced by pressure from many of my Republican friends here, from his
allies in the media, and his own White House staff. They all pressured
him to give that temporary walk back. But it is clear from today's
tweets that he doesn't mean it, that he doesn't believe it, and,
frankly, neither does anybody else. It is clear that he still believes
President Putin over the consensus of the American intelligence
community, and that puts Americans' security gravely at risk.
The President's reluctant, ham-handed, half-hearted ``clarification''
yesterday--almost entirely reversed this morning--is woefully
inadequate. His behavior in Helsinki continues to demand a response
from Congress, and there are many things we can do. But later this
morning, if anything is true to form, the President will hold a Cabinet
meeting, and his advisers will shower him with thanks and praise--this
is what he craves--and will provide, perhaps, another version of what
happened in Helsinki.
Given what happened in Helsinki and given that the President's walk
back was so weak, there are several things we as a Congress can and
should do. Talking the talk is not enough. Walking the walk is what is
so important here. We need to act, not simply say ``tsk, tsk; bad
President'' and then go back to business as usual, because the American
polity, the American security, and the view of America in the eyes of
the world have taken a severe setback. It is up to us in the Congress
to try to undo that.
I mentioned a whole host of actions this body can take to counter
Russia's malign activity, punish Putin for interfering in our
elections, prevent him from doing it again, and ensure that the
President is doing what is necessary to stand up for American
interests. The Senate is not powerless to take action in the wake of
President Trump's indefensible performance at his summit with Vladimir
Putin. Let me reiterate and suggest some things we should do, and I
believe we should do all of these.
First, our Republican colleagues need to join us in demanding
immediate public testimony from the President's national security
team--those who were in Helsinki and those who would have knowledge of
what happened in Helsinki.
We need to have immediate public testimony from Secretary Pompeo,
from DNI Director Coats, and from Ambassador Huntsman.
Above all, we need the translator who was present at the one-on-one
meeting with President Putin to testify openly before Congress. That is
not usually done, but there are almost always other people in the room,
so you don't need the translator. But for some reason--a reason that
Americans and the world are wondering about--President Trump wanted no
one else in the room. Having the translator come testify and tell us
what happened there is an imperative. It is so important. It is rare
for translators to come before Congress, but in this case, it is
warranted--A, because no one else was in the room, by the President's
direction, and B, because what happened there might have been so
important, given what happened in public a few short hours afterward.
The translator works for the Federal Government, works for the
taxpayers, and may be the only person who can accurately report what
President Trump said to President Putin behind closed doors, what
concessions were made to Vladimir Putin. We want to know. Did the
President make concessions that hurt our national security? What did he
agree to?
Congress has a duty to conduct responsible oversight of the executive
branch, particularly after what the President did in Helsinki. The
President's summit calls for oversight. Having these people--
particularly the translator--come testify is important. I understand
Secretary Pompeo will appear before the Foreign Relations Committee
next week, which is good, but we need to hear from others, including
the translator. I urge Leader McConnell and his leadership team to
immediately request a hearing of the people I mentioned.

Second, the Republican leadership should soon place on the floor--
ASAP--bipartisan legislation, led by Senators Booker, Graham, Coons,
and Tillis, to protect the special counsel from political interference.
This legislation passed out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan
support. It has four sponsors--two Democrats, two Republicans. If
Leader McConnell is serious about the checks and balances and if what
he said in the last day or two were not just meaningless words, he will
put this legislation on the floor. It will pass.
Alongside demanding testimony from the President's national security
team, passing legislation to protect the special counsel is probably
the most important thing this body could do to ensure that President
Trump's recklessness does not precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Third, we should ratchet up sanctions on Putin and his cronies, not

[[Page S5029]]

water them down. The sanctions this body passed by an overwhelming
bipartisan margin of 98 to 2--and I salute Leader McConnell; he helped
to bring it to the floor even though the President didn't like it--have
not yet been fully implemented by the Trump administration. On our
side, Senators Menendez and Van Hollen have some very good ideas about
sanctions, and we should act on them.
Fourth, our Republican colleagues can and should insist that the
President finally release his tax returns. We all know that the
President broke decades of practice when he didn't release those
returns--so damaging because his economic interests outside of the
government are so large, complicated, and varied and so important
because he deals with international finance in these situations.
There was no good reason not to release his tax returns then. Yet
President Trump's inexplicable behavior in Helsinki has many Americans
asking: What does Putin have over him that he is behaving in a way that
is, basically, inexplicable by any rational, logical line of thinking?
That is why his tax returns will be so important. We should pass
legislation that requires the President to release his tax returns. It
was important before, but it is much more important now, after
Helsinki.
Fifth, the Republicans should demand with us that the President
insist the 12 Russians who have been indicted for our election
interference and information warfare be handed over. Putin may not do
it, but at least we ought to show how serious we are as a country. The
President ought to show how alarmed he is that this happened, and the
best way to do that is for our Republican colleagues to join with us.
They will have more influence than we will have in asking him to do so.
Finally, we should have bipartisan legislation on election security.
Together, in a bipartisan way, with the help of my friend from
Tennessee--a senior member of Appropriations--in the last omnibus bill,
we passed $380 million for election security. As I understand it, that
money is now being sent out to help the States, but we have to do more.
There is bipartisan legislation. Senators Klobuchar and Lankford and
Senators Van Hollen and Rubio have good legislation that could help
beef up our election security. We ought to move on it.
Our country--our cyber networks and our election systems--is under
constant attack from adversaries like the Russians. There is bipartisan
consensus that we must harden our election infrastructure. This has led
to the legislation I mentioned by Klobuchar, Lankford, Van Hollen, and
Rubio. There is other legislation by Senators Harris and Wyden. I urge
the Republican leader to let us move on one or more of these bills.
We should do all of these things, not just one or two--all of them. I
can't think of a logical reason not to do any of them other than out of
fear of offending the President. Times like these call for us to do
more. We have already heard some of our Republican colleagues say
``let's move on'' after what the President said yesterday--as I
mentioned, his so-called walk back was not a walk back at all--and that
if we cared about our Nation's security, we would move forward.
The final thing I would say to my Republican colleagues is this: This
is a moment that will be remembered in American history. It is not
going away. This is a moment that will be remembered next week, next
month, in November of 2018, in November of 2020, and way beyond. The
Helsinki summit is now an unalterable fact in American history--a
moment when, unfortunately, an American President humiliated his own
country and himself before a foreign dictator. It was a terrible sign
of weakness by this President, and it, unfortunately, weakens the
office he holds.
Yet it can be remembered as a moment when a bipartisan majority in
Congress--Democrats and Republicans in their dropping all trappings of
party--links arms and stands up for our country after our President has
refused to do so. Let's hope it is. Let's hope it is.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. President, I know my colleagues are waiting, and I appreciate
their indulgence as I have one final point on the Supreme Court and
Brett Kavanaugh.
I just read in a very recent interview that Judge Kavanaugh was
asked, if granted the opportunity, whether he would overturn precedent
in any one case. Judge Kavanaugh initially declined to answer. He then
paused and said, on second thought, he would overturn the precedent in
Morrison v. Olson. That is the case that upheld the constitutionality
of the independent counsel law. I will make two brief points on the
subject.
First, Judge Kavanaugh's response demonstrates he is willing to
answer direct questions about precedent--which precedents he agrees
with and which precedents he would overturn. I hope, during the
hearings, we will not suffer the tried-and-true verbal gymnastics of
nominees who have refused to answer questions on existing precedent.
Judge Kavanaugh had no qualms about that in that interview.
Second and more immediately, considering everything we know about
Judge Kavanaugh's expansive view of Executive power and accountability,
the fact that Morrison v. Olson--of all of the cases in the history of
the Supreme Court--is the first case he would think of overturning is
deeply, deeply troubling.
We already know he believes a President shouldn't be investigated
while in office, that a President can't be indicted while in office,
that a President doesn't have to follow laws that the President
``deems''--his word--unconstitutional. Clearly, Judge Kavanaugh's
judicial philosophy incorporates an almost monarchical view of
Executive power and accountability, animated by a belief that our Chief
Executive gets to play by a different set of rules.
Judge Kavanaugh, particularly after this interview, needs to recuse
himself from anything having to do with the Mueller probe given his
record and the fact that he was nominated by the subject of the
investigation he could very well end up ruling on.
Once again, I thank my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Tariffs

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue that is of great
importance to my constituents in Alabama and to many other people
across the country. At issue is the health of our automotive industry.
Unfortunately, the health of my State's automobile industry is being
threatened not by unfair competition or illegal practices but by
significant tariffs proposed by the President. According to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, more than a half a million Alabama jobs are
supported by global trade, meaning more than one in every four Alabama
jobs is tied to trade.
One of the key reasons Alabama has such a robust trade posture is due
to our automotive manufacturing industry. I am old enough to remember
what it was like before auto companies came to Alabama in the 1990s,
starting with Mercedes. At the time that Mercedes came, many of
Alabama's manufacturing facilities were closing down and moving to
other countries. Yet, one by one--from Mercedes, to Honda, to Hyundai,
and now to Toyota and Mazda, which are breaking ground on a new plant
very soon--these automakers came to Alabama and breathed new life into
our State's economy. They support, today, some 57,000 Alabama jobs, and
our auto exports topped $11 billion in 2017. That doesn't even include
the new Toyota-Mazda plant in Huntsville, which is going to add another
4,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in economic development.
After having no automobile industry 30 years ago, Alabama has become
the third largest exporter of automobiles in this country. In only the
past 15 months, every major automobile manufacturer in Alabama has
announced an expansion to total 5,400 jobs and $3.3 billion in
investments. This industry has been a phenomenal success in Alabama
and, more importantly, for the men and women who rely on these very
good-paying jobs to support their families and to build better lives.
That is why it is a priority for me and colleagues like my friend,
Senator Alexander from Tennessee, to keep our States' automotive
industry thriving. Yet, recently, this industry has come under attack.
In May, President Trump threatened a 25-percent tariff

[[Page S5030]]

on imported cars, trucks, and auto parts under the pretext that these
products somehow threaten our national security.
Let me be clear. While the United States faces any number of threats
from adversaries on any number of fronts, foreign automobiles and auto
parts are not threats to our national security. Do you know what is a
threat? It is a 25-percent tax on the prices of these imported goods.
The President's proposed auto tariffs have the potential to inflict
serious damage on a booming industry in my State and in other leading
auto-producing States, like Tennessee. We might call it a tariff, but
we all know exactly what it is--a tax.
By definition, a tariff is a tax on a particular class of imports or
exports. Any tariffs placed on products that come into the United
States are taxes that increase the cost of those goods to American
consumers. When other countries place additional tariffs, or new taxes,
on American goods, it raises the purchase prices of American products
overseas and hurts our ability to sustain competitive markets in those
countries. So it is deeply troubling that the recent proposal from the
President will threaten tens of thousands of jobs in Alabama and
increase costs for American consumers.
Shortly after this tariff threat was issued, Senator Alexander joined
me in writing to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and we urged him to
reconsider the auto tariff tax proposal. Between our two States, the
automotive sector contributes more than 200,000 jobs to our economies.
Numbers of autoworkers from our States are in town this week to tell
their stories, firsthand, to the Commerce Department, and I commend
them for their efforts in doing so.
Senator Alexander and I understand the devastating blow these tariffs
will represent to an industry that has literally rebuilt our respective
States' economies from the ground up. Automakers and their suppliers
can be found in every corner and in nearly every county of each of our
States. We have found common cause in fighting these tariffs and
protecting our constituents from the devastating impacts they will
have.
There are already a few legislative solutions out there, including
Senator Corker's solution regarding tariffs. I know Senator Portman is
also doing a lot of good work in this space. Senator Alexander and I
are working together to propose a solution of our own as a
complementary measure to halt these tariffs. We hope to introduce that
proposal as early as next week after consulting with our automotive
manufacturers and working with our colleagues to grow bipartisan
support for this legislation.
I realize that folks who have been affected by these proposed tariffs
are looking for a silver bullet to stop them dead in their tracks.
Right now, the only silver bullet in this case is for the President to
change his mind and recognize how many jobs are at risk because of
these proposed tariffs. Until that happens, we are going to fight to
protect what our States and our workers have earned.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Alexander, who is here today,
for his continued partnership in this effort. I look forward to working
with more of our colleagues to stop the urgent threat to American jobs.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from
Alabama for his remarks.
I come to the floor to discuss bipartisan legislation that he and I,
as he said, plan to introduce as soon as next week to encourage the
Trump administration to reconsider the dangerous steps it is taking to
impose tariffs on imported automobiles and automotive parts.
I use the word ``dangerous'' because nothing has done more during the
last 40 years to raise family incomes in Tennessee than the arrival of
the auto industry, and nothing could do more damage to those family
incomes than the proposed tariffs on imported automobiles and
automotive parts, combined with the tariffs on imported steel and
aluminum that the administration has already imposed.
We have heard the Senator from Alabama talk about his State. In my
view, Tennessee is more likely to be hurt than any other State by these
tariffs. Let me tell a short story to explain why I would make such a
dramatic statement.
Forty years ago, I walked 1,000 miles across Tennessee in my campaign
for Governor. In Rutherford County, outside Nashville, I spent the
night with the Knight family. Mrs. Knight told me that her twin boys
were bright but that she was sad because, as she put it, there are no
jobs around here. She said: They are smart boys, and they will never
get a job here, and I will never see my grandchildren.
Forty years ago, there were no auto jobs in Tennessee. We were the
third poorest State. Our family incomes were the third lowest. Our low-
paying textile jobs were fleeing outside of our country. Unemployment
and inflation were high, and prospects were bleak. Then in 1980--just 2
years after that walk, when I was the Governor of Tennessee--Nissan
from Japan arrived and came to Rutherford. Then General Motors, with
Saturn, came to Spring Hill. Then Volkswagen came to Chattanooga. All
had large manufacturing plants.
As the American automobile industry moved to the Southeastern United
States, more than 900 auto part suppliers spread across 88 of
Tennessee's 95 counties. Today, 136,000 Tennesseans--or one-third of
our manufacturing workforce--work in those auto plants. Those auto jobs
have become the main driver of family incomes, which have now risen to
a little above the national average. Our economy is booming, and
unemployment is at a record low.
Today, Tennessee produces 6.7 percent of all of the cars and trucks
produced in the United States. Tennessee exported more than $5.5
billion worth of automobiles and auto parts last year. Tennessee has
been the top State in auto manufacturing strength for 5 out of the last
8 years, according to Business Facilities.
Let me get back to my little story. Last year, one of those bright
twins from Rutherford County--the Knight family--where I spent the
night 40 years ago, Randy Knight, retired as the general manager of the
Nissan plant, which is the largest and most efficient auto plant in
North America. His brother works there, too, and so does one of those
grandchildren whom the grandmother thought she would never see.
You can see why Tennesseans become very worried when anything
threatens the auto industry that has transformed our State. Here is why
the proposed tariffs do that.
As the Senator from Alabama said, tariffs are taxes. Tariffs are
taxes on us, pure and simple. They make what we buy and sell more
expensive. The laws of economics usually say that when you make what
you buy and sell more expensive, you buy and sell less of it. If we
sell fewer automobiles and automotive parts, there will be lower
revenues, lower profits, fewer wage increases, and fewer jobs.
Since almost every one of the 900 auto part suppliers use steel and
aluminum, lower revenues and smaller profits mean fewer wage increases
and fewer jobs for the 136,000 Tennesseans who work in the more than
900 auto plants in our State. More expensive cars means fewer people in
the United States buy those cars and fewer people overseas buy those
cars--the cars we make. Fewer people buying cars and trucks means that
136,000 Tennesseans in America's No. 1 auto State are going to have a
lower standard of living than they otherwise would and lower family
incomes.
Why in the world would our government raise our taxes and destroy our
jobs in this way? Well, the government's answer is that tariffs protect
jobs in the steel and aluminum industry.
It is true that some steel and aluminum jobs might be saved, but in
2003, when President George W. Bush proposed steel tariffs, there were
about 10 times as many people working in the steel-using industries as
there were in steel-producing industries. Let me say that again. There
were more people working in the steel-using industry than there were in
the steel-producing industry.
President Bush dropped the idea after a year because the tariffs
destroyed, as

[[Page S5031]]

I said, more jobs in other industries, including the automotive
industry, than they saved in the steel-producing industry.
I know something about the aluminum industry. My dad worked most of
his life at Alcoa's Tennessee aluminum smelting plant, which closed a
few years ago because electricity was so much cheaper in other parts of
the world. You use electricity--lots of it--to smelt aluminum. That is
why those plants came to East Tennessee more than a century ago. But
electric prices in the United States gradually rose over that century,
and are still cheaper in other parts of the world. So today there are
only eight smelting plants left in the United States. Seven of them are
still in operation. Alcoa operates four and makes 46 percent--nearly
half--of all of the aluminum produced in the United States. Alcoa
opposes the aluminum tariffs because it also operates smelting plants
in Canada and other countries that export aluminum to the United
States.
The bottom line is this: The largest U.S. producer of aluminum,
Alcoa, doesn't want the aluminum tariffs. The thousands of auto plants
and other plants that use aluminum don't want the aluminum tariffs. So
who is asking for the aluminum tariffs?
A second reason justifying tariffs is that other countries may have
been unfair to the United States. There may be examples of that, but
when did it become a good idea to solve your own problem by shooting
yourself in both feet at once? It is hard to see how raising our taxes
and destroying our jobs is a smart solution to unfair trade practices.
Then there is the question of whether tariffs help autoworkers.
Raising taxes and prices and selling fewer cars wouldn't seem to help
the American autoworker.
Will it cause foreign companies to build more cars in the United
States? Well, that is already happening.
The foreign manufacturers have been doing exactly what we asked them
to do. They have moved here. They produce cars and trucks here. They
export many of those cars and trucks and auto parts to other countries.
Today, about half the cars being built in America are being built by
the so-called foreign manufacturers. Nissan's plant in Rutherford
County employs 8,000 Tennesseans and is the largest and most efficient
auto plant in North America.
I was with President Trump last year when he spoke in Michigan about
all the autoworker jobs leaving the Midwest. Since 1994, 3.6 million of
those jobs have left the Midwest, but they didn't go overseas; they
moved to Tennessee and Alabama and other parts of the Southeastern
United States, which gained 3.6 million auto jobs during the same
period. Those new auto plants are in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Texas. Those are all States
where the President is widely admired and States that he carried
heavily in his election effort.
Those plants moved primarily to the Southeast because our part of the
country offered right-to-work laws and an environment that allowed
companies to make quality cars at a lower cost and sell them
competitively here in the United States and around the world. In fact,
my own view is that the movement of the American auto industry to the
Southeast saved the American auto industry because where it was 25, 30,
or 40 years ago was stuck in the Midwest in an oligopoly where the
United Automobile Workers and three big companies were producing big,
expensive cars, and the little foreign cars were coming in and eating
their lunch in the marketplace. So now we have strong and effective
American auto plants in the Midwestern United States and in the
Southeastern United States, and half of them are made by so-called
foreign manufacturers.
I agree with President Trump on many things--taxes, judges,
regulations, the economy, Keystone Pipeline, and others. He has helped
create today's booming economy and low unemployment. I give him credit
for helping to do that, but these tariffs take us in exactly the
opposite direction.
These tariffs are dangerous. These tariffs are going to cost us jobs.
These tariffs are going to lower our family incomes. These tariffs are
going to undo much of the good the President and this Congress have
done during the last year and a half to create this booming economy.
I respectfully suggest that the President reconsider his trade
policy, drop the tariffs as a tool for implementing his objectives, and
find other, more effective means to persuade other countries to do for
us what we do for them.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Opening of the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, this weekend, Colorado will be
celebrating the opening of our new Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical
Center in Aurora. I am incredibly proud that we will be reaching this
milestone this weekend after more than a decade of work and some
significant hurdles, trials, and tribulations along the way. I commend
my colleagues for the work they did funding this project.
The Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center will be the crown jewel
of the VA system. It wasn't easy to get here. A lot of people had to do
a lot of work to make it happen, including the veterans, the leadership
organizations in Colorado, our colleagues across the aisle, Congressman
Coffman, Congressman Perlmutter, Senator Bennet--in fact, the entire
congressional delegation for a number of years--Senator Salazar,
Senator Udall, Senator Allard. They have all done incredible work to
make this weekend a possibility.
Hundreds of millions of tax dollars were used for this facility. It
did run over budget. It certainly ran over time. But we have learned a
lot as a result of this facility, and the Army Corps of Engineers will
now be taking over major construction projects like this. As a result
of this facility, we have made changes on how designs are being made.
It was a learning experience and unfortunately a costly one at that,
but it doesn't change the fact that this will be a crown jewel in the
VA system.
This is not the end of a project, it is the beginning of a promise to
be fulfilled--a promise to our veterans on the care they will receive,
a place where they will find healing, where they will find support, and
where they will find a return to good health.
To our men and women in uniform who currently serve, know that you
have a place in Colorado where you will find incredible care.
To those who have served our country, who live in Colorado, know that
with great pride, we open this facility this weekend.
But we have more work to do. We have work to do to make sure that it
is easier to hire doctors and fill the positions at the hospital that
have remained open for months around the VA system. It takes too long
to onboard medical professionals. We should cut down that time, figure
out how to cut through the redtape and the bureaucracy. If you are
qualified to practice medicine at Swedish Hospital in Denver, or any of
our other great facilities, why can't you just go to work at the VA
hospital as well? So these are things that we can do to do a better
job.

On Monday, I met with the Secretary nominee, Robert Wilkie, President
Trump's nominee to be the new VA Secretary, and I talked to him about
the work we have to continue to do to make sure that veterans receive
the best care possible. This Congress has passed legislation, such as
the Choice Act. We have made great reforms over the last several months
to reduce wait times and wait lists and to eliminate them and make sure
that we can provide that promise of care.
This weekend in Colorado there will be a great celebration as we open
this facility. So many people put in tireless years upon years of work,
from the leadership of the State to the leadership of Congress. I am
grateful that this weekend we celebrate as we open a facility that
begins to fulfill the promise made a decade ago for veterans in the
region.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my
colleagues in making it clear just how

[[Page S5032]]

high the stakes are when it comes to our Nation's highest courts--for
our families, for our communities, for our country, and for our future.
Since the day he took office, President Trump has made one move after
another to turn the White House and the entire executive branch into a
tool for those who have the most power, the most money, and the most
influence to get even more power, more money, and more influence. From
our public schools to our public lands and more, it is hard to find any
Trump administration decision where the bottom line didn't come first.
But it is not just his administration. President Trump has
systematically worked to roll back decades of progress through our
courtrooms, from the Supreme Court on down, which will have long-
lasting impacts stretching far beyond his time in the White House.
I know some of my colleagues were here last night to talk about the
absolutely egregious circuit court nominees who would do everything
they can to whittle away at our rights and freedoms as Americans. I
want to talk about that for a bit as well, but I want to take some time
first to talk about a nominee who would sit above those circuit court
nominees in our Nation's Supreme Court and who, if confirmed, would
overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminate protections for patients with
preexisting conditions, reverse settled law and precedent, and give
these extreme circuit court nominees even more room to do damage to our
Constitution, our laws, our freedoms, and our way of life.
It is telling that President Trump and his Republican and special-
interest allies are desperately trying to make the case that Judge
Kavanaugh isn't well outside the mainstream, far outside the bounds of
reasonable, and deeply opposed to what people across the country want
when it comes to their rights and freedoms being protected. They may
try, but they will not succeed because the record is clear and the
facts are clear. Judge Kavanaugh is an extreme pick who would be
devastating for our country if he is confirmed, and we need to do
everything we can to stop it.
So I am standing here right now, on behalf of the families in my home
State of Washington and across this country, to be very clear about
what is at stake if President Trump and his enablers continue to try to
turn our judicial system into one that works for massive corporations
and special interests and against regular families.
Earlier today, a number of my colleagues stood in this spot to sound
the alarm on what is at stake for our environment and our public health
if the balance of this Court swings toward President Trump and his
extreme special interests. I want to expand on those concerns, and I
want to talk about just a few of the many issues that Judge Kavanaugh
would impact should he be confirmed and how awful this would be for our
families, communities, students, and workers and for our environment,
our elections, our country, and more.
But before I get into some other issues--and, again, just a few of
many--I want to start with two that I believe are most important and
that every woman, every man, and every family should be thinking very
hard about: protections for patients with preexisting conditions and
Roe v. Wade.
First, President Trump has broken promise after promise he made to
workers and families on the campaign trail, but he has never once
wavered in keeping promises he made to extreme, ideological, rightwing
special interests.
President Trump said he would make taking away patient protections--
like those for preexisting conditions--and gutting policies that have
made healthcare more affordable for millions a top priority. He failed
to jam a bill through Congress here to make those things happen. So he
has done everything he can to attack patients' healthcare from the Oval
Office.
His biggest attack yet is Judge Kavanaugh--an extremely conservative
nominee vetted by those same rightwing special interests who President
Trump is so determined to keep happy, a judge who those special
interests picked because they know he will help them undermine
affordable healthcare from the Supreme Court Bench.
I believed President Trump when he said he was determined to
undermine patients' healthcare in order to satisfy rightwing special
interests. Healthcare coverage, especially for people with preexisting
conditions, is on the line with this nomination, and we cannot afford
not to take this threat seriously.
That is not the only healthcare issue under threat. President Trump
said he would appoint Supreme Court Justices vetted by these groups for
their willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade. He said women should be
punished for having an abortion. In office, he and Vice President Mike
Pence have done virtually everything they can to restrict women's
access to healthcare and to chip away at women's constitutionally
protected reproductive rights. Unless women and men across the country
stand up to stop them, they will succeed in putting another Supreme
Court Justice who has the ideological rightwing's stamp of approval
when it comes to striking down Roe.

There is no sugarcoating this. We are on the precipice of five men
voting to overturn a historic ruling that has made women healthier and
made them more equal and more free in the United States. We cannot let
that happen.
Those are two issues that so many of us are focused on, and they are
so important, but they are far from the only ones. Another key issue I
want to briefly mention today is the rights and freedoms of our LGBTQ
friends, coworkers, neighbors, and fellow Americans. We have made
progress, but there are many questions and cases in this area that will
come before the Supreme Court in the coming years--whether it is
questions regarding equality under the adoption laws for all couples or
the rights of a couple to buy a wedding cake, whether transgender
troops can serve their country, whether someone can continue being
fired simply for being LGBTQ, and more. So there is a whole lot at
stake. Anyone who cares about this issue or anyone who simply believes
that everyone in this country should have fundamental rights and
freedoms--no matter who they are or who they love--should join us in
rejecting Judge Kavanaugh.
That is not all. We have known from day one that President Trump
would be hostile toward our bedrock environmental laws, that he was
eager to do the bidding of the coal, oil, and gas industries, that his
slogan of putting America first actually meant that the United States
would be dead last in the fight against climate change, and that
Trump's economic agenda has more to do with rolling back rules that
help to keep our kids safe from toxic pollutants, protecting our
drinking water, or preventing health problems in senior citizens--the
ones those special interest groups try to call pesky regulations and
what the rest of us moms, grandmothers, and ordinary people call
commonsense protections.
But it is apparently not enough just to attack our environment for
the administration. If you really want to shape our Nation's
environmental laws for generations to come, you put someone on the
Supreme Court for life who will consistently side with the massive
corporations and special interests that put profits ahead of the health
and well-being of families, and, boy, did those CEOs and special
interests hit the jackpot with President Trump's nominee.
You don't have to spend long looking at Judge Kavanaugh's record to
see that, should he be seated, nearly five decades of environmental
protection are at risk, including the protections enshrined in the
Clean Air Act, which has significantly cut the smog, soot, and
chemicals that choked communities prior to 1970 and prevented hundreds
of thousands of premature deaths and cases of heart disease in the
years sense.
Also at risk is the Clean Water Act, which, if erased, would take us
back to the bad old days before commonsense protections--like when the
Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it caught fire; when shellfish beds
were closed in Puget Sound, nearly decimated by pollutants; or when an
estimated 20 million gallons of sewage effluent flowed into Lake
Washington every single day.
I could go on and on about the strides our country has made to keep
our families safe, but the bottom line is that because of our landmark
environmental laws--like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act--our
rivers are cleaner, our air is easier to breathe,

[[Page S5033]]

and families are better protected than ever before.
Though we have a lot of work yet to do, it would be a grave mistake
to go backward, and that is just what so many people fear would happen
with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench, given his past rulings and given the
test that President Trump applied and his commitment to only nominate
someone screened and approved by the extreme right, especially his
stance that could take decisions away from our Nation's scientists and
nonpartisan professionals and put those decisions into the hands of
special interests.
That takes me to another issue I want to run through briefly: making
sure our elections in this country are free and accessible and that
corporations don't have a louder voice in our process than ordinary
voters. These are issues where our courts have failed to serve us well
in recent years, but by confirming Judge Kavanaugh, we would be
cementing this awful pattern for a generation and making necessary
reform so much more difficult.
Judge Kavanaugh will continue his habit of ruling to make it harder
and harder for citizens to vote and have a voice in this democracy. We
know this. We saw how he ruled in favor of stricter voter ID laws--ones
where the intention to make it harder for Americans to vote was clear
and absolutely the wrong way to go. We cannot have a Supreme Court that
continues to allow voter suppression.
So I ask my colleagues: If you believe that voting in our country
should be open to all and that people shouldn't have less access to the
voting booth because of where they live or the color of their skin,
join me in rejecting this nominee and demanding someone who will
protect our elections and our democracy. If you believe that Citizens
United was an awful decision that perverted the First Amendment and put
shameful amounts of power into the hands of the mega rich and the
biggest corporations, join me in rejecting this nominee and demanding
someone who would put our ordinary voters first.
If we can't stem the flow of dark, unaccountable money in politics,
and reverse the tide of the wealthiest Americans and biggest
corporations being allowed to have the loudest voices in our elections,
we are going to keep running into massive challenges as a
nation. Without a Supreme Court willing to do that, without rejecting
Judge Kavanaugh and demanding someone else, we can't do that. Giving
the most powerful among us an advantage in our elections is not the
only way Judge Kavanaugh is working for those at the top, and I want to
briefly discuss another.

Last month's Janus decision made it clear that workers and their
unions need a fair voice on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Judge
Kavanaugh has a long record of weakening worker protections,
undermining union rights, and making it easier for corporations and
special interests to tilt the scales of justice in their favor.
I would urge my colleagues who claim to care about the rights and
economic security of working families to join me in rejecting this
nomination and put the power back into the hands of working families
and the middle class.
This point is especially potent given the disgrace we witnessed in
Helsinki. Every American should be deeply concerned about President
Trump putting someone on the Supreme Court who is prepared to protect
him from legal attack and do his bidding.
As we all watch, many of us in horror and dismay, as President Trump
continues to do everything in his power to try and discredit the
Mueller investigation, we cannot forget, for a moment, that his Supreme
Court nominee suggested in a 2009 law review article that a sitting
President should not be subjected to criminal investigation or civil or
criminal litigation.
Does anyone think, for one second, this isn't something President
Trump was looking for? Is there anyone who has seen how President Trump
has acted, listened to what he said who thinks he is not thinking about
what happens if something related to this investigation goes to the
Supreme Court?
President Trump controls the White House. His Republicans control
both Houses of Congress. The last thing we need, the last thing any
American who truly cares about our country should want is to place the
last remaining branch--the final branch intended to be independent, to
put our Constitution first--into the hands of a Trump lackey. That
would be awful. It would eliminate even the pretense of checks and
balances. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, with his record and given
what we know about President Trump, that is exactly what would happen.
If you believe we should be taking the Russian election interference
into U.S. elections seriously, join me in rejecting this nominee and
demanding someone who would be truly independent and place an
appropriate check on Executive power.
If you believe a President is not above the law, join me in rejecting
this nominee and demanding someone who will take our Constitution and
our judicial independence seriously.
If you believe Executive power is not unilateral and that real checks
and balances are required, join me in rejecting this nominee and
demanding someone who will clearly and unequivocally make sure that
continues to be a reality.
Finally, I want to highlight Judge Kavanaugh's troubling record on
commonsense gun safety. This is an issue that certainly hit close to
home for far too many people in recent years. Churches, schools,
concerts, it seems like no place is immune to the rampant gun violence
happening in the country, which is why millions of Americans have taken
to the streets in recent months to demand action.
Yet, at the same time, Judge Kavanaugh has taken a far more expansive
interpretation of the Second Amendment and has vigorously argued that
assault weapon bans are unconstitutional. His position is far more
extreme than even the late Justice Scalia. It is no wonder the NRA
immediately applauded Judge Kavanaugh's nomination and has pledged now
to spend untold amounts to seal the deal on his confirmation.
Those are just a few issues weighing on so many people's minds right
now. I could go on about what is at stake if President Trump turns his
White House, and potentially now the judicial system, into one that
favors the powerful few.
I would like to close by saying there are few things I take as
seriously as a Senator than my duty to consider and vote on a Supreme
Court nominee. In my time in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to
consider nominees from Democrats and nominees from Republicans. I voted
for some of them, I voted against some of them, each on their merits,
and each based on how I think they would serve.
This time is different. We know exactly where President Trump's
Supreme Court nominee will fall on the specific issues, no matter what
vague answers Judge Kavanaugh chooses to deliver through this process.
Why do we know this? Because President Trump told us openly,
publicly, and repeatedly. The President laid out specific tests and
promised to only pick nominees from a prescreened list of people who
would absolutely meet them.
Nobody should be fooled. Judge Kavanaugh is a rubberstamp. He will
stand with special interests over families, and he will take our
country in the wrong direction.
I urge my colleagues, stand with me in rejecting Judge Kavanaugh's
nomination and join me in calling on President Trump to send us someone
who would stand with women, with our workers, with our families, and
who would truly commit to respecting settled law and the rights and
freedoms we all hold dear and the longstanding protections that help
keep our families safe and healthy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Nomination of Ryan Bounds

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to speak out in opposition to
the nomination of Ryan Bounds to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
I will be voting against his confirmation, and I ask all of my
colleagues to do the same. My reason for this is not just the fact that
in expressing his disdain for multicultural values in a series of
college writings, he compared efforts to build tolerance and promote
diversity to Nazi book burning; it is not just the fact that he
advocated against policies designed to make

[[Page S5034]]

LGBTQ students feel welcome and crack down on campus rapists; it is not
just the fact that when a bipartisan judicial selection committee asked
him to disclose past controversies, he deliberately misled the
committee and said there was nothing to worry about.
Now that his controversial writings have come to light, he refuses to
retract or show remorse for his statements. Instead, he brushes them
off as overbroad and overheated.
Ryan Bounds' writings show he does not believe in a tolerant and
diverse America, where women and people of color are treated with equal
respect. In my eyes, that alone disqualifies him from sitting on the
Federal bench, but Bounds has not received the blue-slip approval of
either Senator from his home State of Oregon. No judge in modern
history has ever been confirmed without a blue slip from either home
State Senator.
So a vote to confirm him is a direct attack on the Senate's
constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. The blue-slip
process is a critical function of the legislative branch. It gives
every Senator a chance to have a say in the Federal judges who serve in
their home State.
The nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will
have a lifetime tenure. If confirmed, Ryan Bounds will have influence
over our legal system for the rest of his life. Don't the American
people and their elected officials deserve a say in whether he should
be allowed to fill that seat?
This debate is not just about one unqualified judge and his racist
ideas. It is about the duty of the legislative branch to serve as a
check and balance on the President. Over the course of the Trump
administration so far, we have seen an unprecedented attempt to
undermine the blue-slip process and pack the courts with judges favored
by corporations and special interests.
I urge my colleagues to take a stand against President Trump's
attacks on our legal system. Protect the integrity of the blue-slip
process and vote against Ryan Bounds' nomination. The power and
independence of the legislature is at stake.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Calling for the Release of Pastor Andrew Brunson

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I think last week or the week before, you
were presiding when I did a speech that I promised I am going to do
every week we are in session until justice is served in Turkey.
It is a speech about this man. His name is Pastor Andrew Brunson. He
was arrested in Turkey in October of 2016. If you want to sum up his
crime, it is for being a missionary. He has been in Turkey for about 20
years, has served the community well, has provided aid and comfort to
Syrian refugees, has provided a place for people in Turkey who want to
come into a Christian church to do just that. He has a small church in
Izmir. You can only seat about 100 people in it, and he didn't even
have that when he started his missionary work.
I should say he is from the Black Mountain area of North Carolina. He
was part of the same church that Rev. Billy Graham was a part of. He
went to Turkey to really pursue his passion and serve in Christ through
missionary work.
In 2016, after the coup attempt, President Erdogan implemented
emergency powers, and he swept up thousands of people and put them in
prison. Pastor Brunson was in a Turkish prison for almost 19 months
without charges--about 17 months in a cell that was designed for 8
prisoners that had 21 people in it.
I was in Turkey about 4 months ago--when I first met Pastor Brunson
personally--to visit him in prison to let him know that as long as I am
in the U.S. Senate, I am going to work hard for his ultimate release.
Then I went back about 6 weeks later, and I sat in a Turkish
courtroom for about 12 hours, and I heard some of the most absurd
charges that could ever be levied against someone to keep them in
prison for what will now be going on 2 years. I told Pastor Brunson I
would be back, and I will continue to be back, until justice is served.
I don't want to get into too many of the details so I will tell you
he was in a courtroom today for another 5 hours. If it bore any
resemblance to the time I was in the courtroom, it goes something like
this: The defense gets to say nothing. They don't get to introduce
witnesses to testify on his behalf. You have secret witnesses, many of
them in a Turkish prison, testifying against him about things like a
daughter posting a meal she had on a social media application that the
Turkish authorities believe linked her to terror because they believe
it is a meal certain terrorist organizations like. It also happens to
be a meal that a lot of people in the Middle East like, but that was a
charge that suggested he was involved in a coup attempt or conspiring
with terrorists.
Having a light on in a church--by the way, in a room that doesn't
have a window--that was supposedly observed by one of these secret
witnesses who are in prison, saying: Well, clearly if there was a light
on in this church, nothing good could have happened because it was in
the middle of the night. Maybe somebody just left the light switch on,
but I am still trying to figure out how they actually saw it because I
have been in that room, and there is not a single window. There is no
way you could have seen it from the outside.
Those are the types of charges that have been used to keep Pastor
Brunson in prison since October of 2016.
Today, he was back, as I said earlier, in a hearing in a Turkish
courtroom for 5 hours. At the end of the 5-hour hearing he was told
that he is going to continue to be in prison until they have another
hearing in October, and that hearing is scheduled for about 4 days
short of 2 years that he has spent time in a Turkish prison.
He has been in prison for 649 days. He is in good spirits--as good as
you can imagine for somebody who is enduring the trauma of being
imprisoned, I think, unlawfully and unfairly.
His wife Norine is in Turkey. She refuses to leave because she is
afraid if she leaves Turkey, Turkey will not allow her to come back
into the country.
They have been separated from their three children for 2 years
because they are afraid to have them come into the country and not be
able to leave.
I am asking the Members of Congress to join with me to apply pressure
on Turkey to have justice done. Justice is releasing Pastor Brunson and
letting him come back home.
We have provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that
send a very clear message to Turkey that we are serious about this.
I have my own concerns about Turkey because they seem to be drifting
away as a NATO ally and partner and more toward a position I don't
quite understand. I certainly don't understand it in terms of our
mutual interests as NATO allies or as economic partners.
But for right now, I want to focus on a man who has been in prison
for 649 days. I want to focus on other people who worked with the
Embassy who have been in prison for about the same time. I want to
focus on a NASA scientist who happened to be visiting his family in
Turkey--he is a Turkish American--who has been in prison for 2\1/2\
years. We have to educate the American people on a Turkey that has no
resemblance today of what it was just 5 or 6 years ago.
I want to have a positive working relationship with Turkey. I want
increased economic ties and increased military ties. But when you
illegally imprison American citizens, no matter how important that
strategic relationship is, at some point we have to question whether or
not we can go further.
In the meantime, if any of you are planning on going to Turkey, I
would think twice. Make sure that you don't take a picture of somebody
that maybe Turkish officials think is involved in a coup, because that
can sweep you up in it. Make sure that you don't eat a meal that other
segments of Turkish society like, because that may make you a coup
conspirator.
I hope that we solve this problem, but I will tell you that there are
very few things that would ever take me away from coming to this floor
and going into committee meetings and doing everything I can to put
pressure on Turkey until Pastor Andrew Brunson is back in this country
safe and sound with his family. Then I will

[[Page S5035]]

continue to work on all the other people who are being unfairly and
unjustly held in Turkish prisons.
We need to have justice for Pastor Brunson. We need Turkey to be the
ally that we want them to be, and we need President Erdogan to show the
leadership and the compassion to bring Pastor Brunson home.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Tariffs

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about tariffs and
their impact on Montana's family farmers and businesses. In Montana we
have more than 27,000 family farms and ranches. Folks who farm and
ranch these lands are descendants of homesteaders and pioneers,
including myself. They are also young producers who may be preparing
for their first harvest. Might I add that we don't have enough young
producers in our State. The population of farmers is getting far too
old.
These folks work 7 days a week, for long hours, to raise the food
that feeds our families across this world, and they power our rural
economies in this country. Farmers and ranchers are small business
operators and owners who are always on tight margins and always are
looking to make sure that they can make the books balance by being on
the positive side of the ledger. Why? So they can keep their farms and
ranches viable to be able to have the next generation take over their
operation. Just like any other business--a local bar or a hardware
store--you need to be able to make a profit to stay in business.
Producers need to make sure that they have predictability in input
costs--we are talking about fertilizers, fuel, and seed--and
predictability in markets, the places where we sell our grain, which
has always been a challenge and which has become more of a challenge
over the past 6 months. When farmers plant a crop, they need to know
there is a market for that crop, because if there is not, it can put
them in a world of hurt financially.
Unfortunately, in Montana, we are preparing to harvest winter wheat
crops as we speak. Spring wheat crops will soon be coming, pulse crops
will soon be coming, and oil seeds will soon be coming. The fact is
that there is no certainty in any of those crops right now. Why?
Because our farmers and our ranchers are being used as pawns in a trade
war that I can guarantee not one of them asked for.
This trade war is eliminating access to foreign markets that have
taken generations to develop and putting family farm and ranch
operations in a financial pinch--such a severe financial pinch that we
haven't seen anything like it since the 1980s, when we saw a mass
exodus off the land due to bad ag prices.
The retaliatory tariffs against family farmers and ranchers is
harming Montana's No. 1 industry, agriculture. Montana's grain
producers produce about $2 billion worth of wheat, barley, pulse crops,
and oil seeds every year. Since the middle of June, the price of No. 1
Dark Northern Spring wheat in southeastern Montana has fallen more than
60 cents a bushel. That is more than 10 percent, and the same can be
said throughout the State of Montana.
To put that in perspective, just think what would happen in your
business if your prices were reduced by 10 percent right off the top.
It would put you in a world of financial hurt, and that is where
Montana's farms and ranches are today. If prices continue to plummet,
some of these families who have been on the land for over 100 years
will be forced to make some very difficult decisions in the next 6 to 8
months.

These tariffs are eliminating producers' access to foreign markets--
markets that are in Asia and Europe and markets in Canada and Mexico.
In Montana, we sell our grains and our beef to these countries and
others: China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Pacific Rim countries, and
European Union countries. These exports didn't just pop up overnight.
They came to fruition after years of hard work, good faith and trust,
and negotiations.
Negotiations and trust are being thrown out the window with these
tariff fights. In some cases--Japan, for example--it has taken multiple
generations to establish these export markets. If we lose them, it will
take many generations to get them back. Countries such as Argentina and
Russia are circling the markets like sharks, wanting to strike the
minute we lose a grip on them to fill those voids.
Take, for instance, Mexico. Mexico is the largest importer of Montana
barley in the world. For years, Mexico bought Montana's barley to be
able to make beers, like Corona and others. These tariffs have put
those markets at risk to the point that one Mexican barley buyer told
one of the folks from the barley association of Montana: I don't know
that we can depend on America to supply our barley anymore because
these tariffs have put our markets at risk.
As a result, Mexico, which is a huge importer of American wheat, just
this last spring turned toward Argentina for their wheat for the first
time ever. They signed a contract for Argentine wheat to take the place
of the wheat from this country, of which Montana is a part and will no
longer be supplying.
The real question is, How long is this going to have to go on? We are
faced with enough uncertainties in production and agriculture with
weather, drought, hail, bugs, and disease. The list goes on.
Unfortunately, this is a manmade problem.
I get it. I think the President is right when he talks about holding
China accountable. They have stolen a lot of intellectual property.
They manipulate their currency. But to put on tariffs where retaliation
comes on ag products is not the right direction to go. We can get their
attention by other ways.
I would also say that these tariffs aren't just felt by farmers and
ranchers. They are felt by other businesses too. For builders, for
example, their costs are going up. In 2016, the voters of Missoula, MT,
approved a $30 million bond to build a new city library. They started
the project, but tariffs on steel sent material costs soaring. Now the
cost of rebar alone has increased the cost of the project by $100,000.
Library officials have told me that as a direct result of these
tariffs, they are preparing with a need to go out and raise another
$500,000 to finish this project. The people of our State have to pay
that price.
One of Montana's fastest growing industries is microbreweries. It is
a real success story, employing a lot of folks and adding value to
grains in our State. They are being hit hard by tariffs on aluminum.
These emerging businesses have no other option but to pass that cost on
to their patrons.
So we are paying both ways, folks. We are paying on the tariffs
coming in, and we are paying on the tariffs being put on our products
going out.
In agribusiness, for example, everything that is made of steel is
going up and going up significantly. From I-beams to cattle guards, to
posts for fencing, to metal for storage bins, anything made out of
steel is going up significantly. Manufacturers who have been on the
rebound since the 2008 financial crisis now have a hard time bidding
contracts on materials. Less of their money is going into their
pockets, if there is any left at all, because of these tariffs. Every
sector of our economy is feeling the pinch of this escalating trade
war.
Fair trade is really important. Getting manufacturing back to this
country is really important, but it doesn't appear that we are doing
those things. Instead, we are putting our existing businesses--whether
it is in production or agriculture, construction or manufacturing--at
risk with these trade wars.
We should have open markets. Those markets need to go in both
directions, but we shouldn't be driving people into bankruptcy in the
meantime. That is what is happening.
I ask: What is the end game? If this trade war continues, I had an ag
banker tell me that family farms and ranchers have about 18 months
before they have to start liquidating. That is the reality we are
facing, and that is not very long.
That is the reason why this body needs to understand that we need to
send strong messages to the administration that they can't use farms,
ranches, and small businesses as bargaining chips. Their livelihoods
are on the line.
Earlier this month, I hosted a roundtable discussion on tariffs at
the Billings Chamber of Commerce. I was able to meet Montanans eyeball
to eyeball,

[[Page S5036]]

and I heard their concerns. This is not a political issue. These
tariffs aren't targeted toward Democrats or Republicans. They are
targeted at everyone. Ag producers at this moment in time are probably
carrying the majority of the load. It needs to stop before the damage
is irreversible.
My grandparents homesteaded the land that we farm and lived through
the 1930s. My folks, who took over the land, took the farm over in the
early 1940s and lived through a lot of hard times themselves. My wife
and I took the farm over in the late 1970s, and we saw what happened in
the 1980s. We have seen what happens in agriculture, where so many of
the folks can't make it on the farm anymore, and they have to have jobs
off the farm to be able to make the books balance.
These tariffs are making things harder. We have been down difficult
paths in this country before. I don't believe we can afford another
punch to the gut in rural America. I will continue to fight for and
defend the folks who put food on our table, but their bottom lines are
being severely, severely impacted by this trade war.
Now look, the legislation we passed last week is a start. The Senate
version of the farm bill provides a safety net, but I am here to state
that if things continue to go south for our markets, we are going to be
faced with a bill that dumps a bunch of money into production
agriculture to keep these folks afloat. Why? Because of tariffs that
are being put on ag products. It doesn't have to be this way.
We are an equal branch of government. I believe that both Republicans
and Democrats can work on this issue in a commonsense way, especially
in this body. The administration needs to understand that if they keep
continuing down this war of who can put the most tariffs on products,
we are going to have a hard time keeping our businesses afloat,
particularly our family farms and ranches in this country. That will
not help with food security for our country, and the long-term negative
impacts of that are unacceptable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been a little more than a week
since President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh
to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the impending
retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In that short period of time, we
have seen some of our friends across the aisle run through an almost
impressive set of rhetorical calisthenics in an attempt to tank Judge
Kavanaugh's confirmation before it even had a chance to begin.
``He will overturn this case or this law,'' they claim. ``He will not
be a check on the President,'' they have tried to say. They have even
suggested that he charged too much for baseball season tickets on his
credit card--horror of horrors. Multiple fact-checkers have debunked
each of these claims, so they have moved on.
More recently, we have heard from some of our Democratic colleagues
that they want to review every single piece of paper--every email,
every memo, every document that has passed across Brett Kavanaugh's
desk at any point in his career.
Reviewing relevant and important documents is a perfectly normal part
of confirming a judicial nominee, but using that as an excuse to delay,
foot-drag, and obstruct is not acceptable. We know that the effort to
get every memo from the Bush White House during the time he served as
Staff Secretary there is really laughable and is only a fishing
expedition designed to delay his confirmation until after the Supreme
Court begins its work the first Monday in October.
For example, as Staff Secretary, he would have had the responsibility
to basically manage the paper flow across the President's desk. These
aren't just documents that he, himself, has generated. In fact, I
suspect that with the overwhelming majority of them, he would have had
nothing to do with creating them. He wouldn't be the author. He
wouldn't be making policy recommendations. Basically, he would have
navigated all of the documents that went across the President's desk to
make sure that they had been reviewed by the appropriate person and
that they would have been checked for accuracy. The ideas that every
single piece of paper that went across President George W. Bush's desk
should be somehow relevant and that we should delay confirmation until
we have all had a chance to read it are ridiculous. Is what President
Bush had for dinner 14 years ago relevant to Judge Kavanaugh's fitness
to serve on the Supreme Court? Obviously not.
Just as, in 2010, the committee quickly processed Justice Kagan, who
spent many years in the Clinton White House, I am confident we can
expeditiously and efficiently review Judge Kavanaugh's relevant
background materials to make sure the vote on his confirmation occurs
before the Supreme Court reconvenes in October.
Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee will
work to produce as many documents as are relevant and possible so that
every Senator can do their due diligence. An important part of our
constitutional responsibility is to provide advice and consent, as the
Constitution itself says.
The most important thing to remember is that unlike the Kagan
nomination, we have 12 years of service on the bench by Judge
Kavanaugh. He served on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in what has
often been called the second most important court in the Nation because
it is located in the District of Columbia. Most of the major cases
involving huge policy disputes confronting the Federal Government have
made their way through his court, and he has written opinions--majority
opinions and dissenting opinions--which have all been reviewed by the
U.S. Supreme Court. I submit that would be the best evidence of what
kind of Justice he would be on the Supreme Court. What kind of judge
has he been on the DC Circuit? That is the best evidence.
We shouldn't indulge requests for these fishing expeditions and paper
chases that will lead to nothing other than delay. It is important that
the vetting process be deliberative and thorough, and it will be. But
the volume of documents requested shouldn't be just a pretext to draw
this out for political purposes.
Here is an important factoid: Nearly half of the Democratic caucus
has already said that they will vote no on Judge Kavanaugh's
confirmation to the Supreme Court. Are they going to be requesting
documents? Are they going to be saying ``Well, I want to look at
everything that came across his desk'' when they have already announced
their public opposition?
Five of them announced their opposition before Judge Kavanaugh was
even named. In other words, they would oppose anyone who is nominated
by this President. We saw an attempt to filibuster the nomination of
Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the change of the
precedent. We lowered the number of votes to close off debate from 60
votes to 51 votes because we realized that some across the aisle were
so determined to vote against any nominee of this President--no matter
how well qualified--there was no way we could confirm a well-qualified
candidate. So we changed that.

Both Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch were confirmed just 66 days after
they were nominated. In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, if that same
timetable held up, we would be voting on his confirmation about
September 13--well in advance of the October deadline when the Court
reconvenes. We will have plenty of time to thoroughly vet this nominee
in a similar timeframe, which is consistent with the confirmation
process for both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
I had the good fortune to sit down with Judge Kavanaugh last week and
to renew my acquaintance with him, which first occurred in 2000. As I
have recounted here on the floor, when I was attorney general of Texas,
I had the privilege to argue a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As one of the best qualified appellate lawyers in the country, having
clerked on the Supreme Court, as well, he was one of the lawyers who
helped me get ready for that oral argument.
I had a chance not only to get to know him in 2000 but to follow his
career on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has consistently
impressed me with his thoughtfulness, his deliberativeness, his
outstanding legal and

[[Page S5037]]

academic credentials, and, of course, his experience on the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals. He was candid and open, professional and impressive.
I hope all of our colleagues will meet with Judge Kavanaugh to see
for themselves. I have been told that he has been making calls to some
Democratic Senators' offices, and they refuse to see him at all.
He is an accomplished jurist who will fairly and faithfully apply the
law as written and adhere to the text of the Constitution, as judges
are obligated to do, and leave the policymaking and the politics to the
Congress and the executive branch. I look forward to continuing our
vetting process and voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this fall--well
in advance of the October term of the Supreme Court.
On a separate note, Mr. President, this afternoon, we will vote to
confirm another accomplished legal mind, Andy Oldham, to the Federal
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
Andy will join two other judges whom we have already confirmed in the
Fifth Circuit earlier this year: Don Willett, a former member of the
Texas Supreme Court, and Jim Ho, my former chief counsel, someone with
impeccable legal credentials. They are already on the Fifth Circuit. I
am delighted that Andy Oldham will be joining them.
As we like to say in Texas, Andy wasn't born there, but he got there
as fast as he could. He grew up in Richmond, VA, where his parents
instilled within him a sense of hard work. His father put himself
through college, and his mother was one of the first women to attend
the University of Virginia.
Following their examples, Andy attended the University of Virginia
and was awarded the prestigious title of Jefferson Scholar. While he
was at UVA, he helped found an advocacy group to prevent sexual
assault. His group was particularly focused on educating young men on
their responsibilities when it comes to sexual violence.
From there, he attended the University of Cambridge as a Truman
Scholar, graduated with first class honors, and then went to law school
at Harvard--very impressive academic credentials.
During law school, he helped represent a death row inmate in a habeas
corpus petition and won a temporary stay of execution in the U.S.
Supreme Court. Based on Andy's hard work, the then-Governor of
Virginia, who is now a Member of the Senate, commuted the defendant's
sentence to life without parole based upon Andy's legal representation.
After law school, he went on to clerk for Judge Sentelle on the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals, which I spoke about in connection with Brett
Kavanaugh. Then he served as an attorney to the Department of Justice's
Office of Legal Counsel; that is, the lawyers for the lawyers at the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, who issue
authoritative guidance for the Department of Justice. And then, of
course, he served as a law clerk for Justice Alito on the Supreme
Court.
Following a period of private practice, the State of Texas came
calling, and Andy became a deputy solicitor general in the office of
the Texas attorney general; then it was Greg Abbott, whom he later
followed to the Governor's office, where he now serves as Governor
Abbott's general counsel.
On behalf of the State of Texas, Andy has argued two cases before the
U.S. Supreme Court and filed countless briefs in support of the State.
Because of his background and experience, Andy has earned bipartisan
support, receiving recommendations from the general counsel to the
Obama Foundation, as well as the Texas attorney general's office.
In his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Andy
spoke about his transition from a role as an advocate to that of a
jurist. He explained how he views the role of a jurist as
``fundamentally different,'' which it is.
He went on to say that ``the oath of a jurist is simply to administer
justice impartially, to do equal right by rich and poor, and to
discharge justice in an equal and fair manner.'' This is exactly the
type of judge we should want serving on our courts--someone who is
impartial, not someone who will push for a particular ideology or
political agenda on the bench. I believe Andy will follow this
philosophy of impartially and fairly administering the law.
Andy spent all but 3 years of his career in public service, and he
has advocated on behalf of Texans for many years. I am confident he
will continue to serve them and the rest of the country well, and I
look forward to supporting his nomination this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Utah.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the confirmation
process for Brett Kavanaugh. By any honest measure, President Trump's
nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, is exceptionally well qualified to serve on
the Supreme Court. When he was nominated to the DC Circuit, he already
had stellar credentials, a keen intellect, and an impressive knowledge
of the law. He was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court in 2006, following
years of Democratic obstruction. I have followed his work closely on
that court for over a decade. His judicial record never ceases to
impress.
A nominee with such a sterling reputation should receive wide
bipartisan support. But over the years, I have seen firsthand the
deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. When Justice
Kennedy announced his retirement, I knew the Democrats would, again,
play politics with the Supreme Court. It is what they have done for
more than three decades. It is a matter of grave concern to me,
especially with an eminently qualified nominee. They are casting about
looking for something--really, anything--to stop Judge Kavanaugh's
confirmation.
Because Democrats want political judges, they politicize the
confirmation process. This is what they did to oppose Justice Neil
Gorsuch when he was nominated. They took a few cases out of the
thousands he had decided and distorted what he had said. They attacked
him as being unfit to serve. They said he was unqualified to be a
Justice, but Justice Gorsuch had an unassailable record as a principled
jurist on the Federal bench.
We fought back against the misrepresentations, the caricatures, and
the exaggerations, and the American people saw through the Democrats'
ruse. They saw the kind of Justice Neil Gorsuch would be--a Justice who
says what the law is, not what he wants it to be, a Justice who
respects the separation of powers, a Justice who will stand up to the
executive and legislative branches when they overreach. I believe the
American people will see the same thing when they look at Judge
Kavanaugh.
The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation should be a debate
over his qualifications. Does he understand the proper role of a judge
under our Constitution? Does he have the experience needed? Will he
respect our Constitution and the rule of law?
With hundreds of opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has built a reputation as
being one of the most respected and influential judges in the entire
country. His incisive reasoning has led the Supreme Court to adopt his
positions in at least 12 cases.
Fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law are hallmarks of
his opinions. Importantly, his vast body of work shows a deep
commitment to the separation of powers. His opinions demonstrate his
commitment to the principle that judges should interpret the law, not
make it.
Judge Kavanaugh should be asked questions about his rulings and his
approach to the law. As a judge, he has developed a reputation for his
preparation in court. I have no doubt that he can stand up under the
most rigorous questioning.
Yet what we have seen so far is a mix of hyperbole, mudslinging, and
distortion. Attacks aimed at Judge Kavanaugh have not focused on
whether he is qualified to serve. They have not focused on whether he
understands the role of a judge. They have not focused on how he will
interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. When it
comes to what we should be asking about a nominee, what we have seen so
far is not even in the ballpark.
After scouring Judge Kavanaugh's financial disclosure, progressives
thought they had struck gold with a shocking revelation that would,
surely, turn public opinion against him. So

[[Page S5038]]

what salacious scandal did they uncover? What damning evidence did they
find that would dash all hopes of confirmation?
The Presiding Officer is not going to believe this, but they
discovered that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys America's pastime. That is
right. Judge Kavanaugh loves baseball--horrors. Honestly, I couldn't
believe it either. But wait. It gets worse.
Not only does Judge Kavanaugh love baseball, but he was once a season
ticket holder at Nationals Park. OK, but here is the real kicker. Judge
Kavanaugh bought those season tickets with a credit card--with a credit
card of all things. As was the Presiding Officer, I was speechless too.
I have been racking my brain all week trying to figure out how a credit
card-using baseball fan could slip through the cracks of the White
House's vetting process.
Now, I am being facetious to prove a point. We are only 9 days into
the confirmation process, and progressive opposition is already beyond
parody.
Of course, this is nothing new. Everything we have seen so far comes
directly from the Democrats' playbook. Throw every rumor, half-truth,
and exaggeration at the nominee, and just see what sticks. When nothing
sticks, double down on partisan attacks, take past statements out of
context, mischaracterize his positions, and lob a hyperbolic Hail Mary
if you have to. Do everything you can to denigrate, disparage, and
dehumanize the nominee no matter his qualifications or character.

If Democrats continue down this path, we are going to lose all
ability to debate matters of public importance. We cannot expect that
all debate will be well reasoned, but opposition should, at the very
least, be rational. It should never be hysterical. The rhetoric used to
oppose Judge Kavanaugh crosses that line.
Just last week, when speaking about Judge Kavanaugh's impressive
resume, I said you could not knock Yale, Harvard, or Georgetown. Maybe
I spoke too soon. Shortly after the announcement that Judge Kavanaugh
would be the nominee, Yale Law School released a statement with praise
of Judge Kavanaugh from professors and administrators.
One professor even noted that ``politics have deeply harmed our
Supreme Court nomination process,'' but she lauded Judge Kavanaugh as
being a ``true intellectual,'' an ``incomparable mentor,'' and a
``fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law.'' She went on to
say that ``he is humble, collegial, and cares deeply about the federal
courts.''
The response from some Yale Law School students, staff, and alumni
was swift, forceful, uncompromising, and completely ridiculous:
``People will die if he is confirmed.'' As these Yale alumni were
feverishly opposing the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh was spotted
volunteering his time with a local charity to distribute food to the
poor. His decision to keep his commitment to volunteer the week he was
nominated to the Supreme Court says more about Judge Kavanaugh than any
letter could.
This overwrought reaction, sadly, comes as no surprise. Crying wolf
is the left's trademark strategy in attempts to sabotage Republican
nominees. Back in 1990, a group that opposed then-nominee David Souter
warned that he was a threat to the ``lives, health and livelihoods of
millions of women and their families.'' It wasn't true then, and it
isn't true now.
I hope that the Senate can raise the level of debate as we consider
the nomination. In doing so, we should focus on whether Judge Kavanaugh
is qualified.
I hope my Democratic colleagues can resist the temptation to
politicize this nomination as they have with others in the past. Some
of what we are seeing now has me worried.
We have also heard a lot from Democrats about how important
transparency is to the confirmation process. Because of Judge
Kavanaugh's long record of public service to our Nation, the executive
branch has been asked to produce a large number of documents. Democrats
have been demanding that they be given access to these documents as
quickly as possible.
Some of my colleagues have expressed shock that Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein requested that assistant U.S. attorneys help to
review these documents. The truth is that the Office of Legal Policy at
the Justice Department always assists with nominations, and that Office
is composed mostly of career attorneys. It is not uncommon for
attorneys from other offices in the Justice Department to help with the
review of nominations.
The government attorneys at the Department of Justice who work on
nominations are extraordinarily thorough. Given the reportedly large
number of documents, it makes sense that to facilitate this process,
the DOJ would seek extra help.
When we spoke last week, Judge Kavanaugh said he was proud of his
opinions, and he hoped people would actually read them rather than just
read about them. I think those who do that will be just as impressed by
Judge Kavanaugh's work as I am. I hope Senators will take the time to
sit down with him.
Judge Kavanaugh has spent more than 23 years in public service. As a
good man, a decent man, and an honest man, Judge Kavanaugh is the type
of person we should all hope is nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme
Court. That is why I am so pleased that President Trump nominated Judge
Kavanaugh. I intend to do everything I can to support his nomination,
and I hope that all other Senators will do the same.
We have to quit this mudslinging and mischaracterizing of people's
characters. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people I know. He is
also one of the smartest. He is conservative--no question about that--
but he is honest. To me, these are some of the most important keys to
these judgeship positions. I hope we get rid of the unjust
representations against the judge. I hope we will start treating the
Senate like the great deliberative body it really is.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S.
3229 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The clerk will call the
roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week, President Trump nominated
Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. People have
begun looking over his extensive record, and he has been getting rave
reviews around the country. Just look at a few of the headlines we have
seen across the country.
The New York Times, July 10: ``A conservative stalwart wins praise
for his intellect and civility.'' The New York Times--it is
astonishing.
The Wall Street Journal said: ``Trump's nominee will be an
intellectual leader on the bench.''
The Detroit News said his record suggests that ``he will maintain a
commitment to interpreting the law as it is written, and not how he may
wish it had been crafted.'' That is exactly what Americans should be
looking for in a Supreme Court Justice because a judge's job is to
apply the law, not to rewrite it.
People looking at Judge Kavanaugh's record and reaching the
conclusion that he knows the right way to approach this very important
job.
It is not just newspapers that are saying wonderful things and
singing the praise of Judge Kavanaugh; legal scholars are lining up to
commend his independence and his wisdom as a judge. Some of them are
extremely liberal people he has worked with over the years. They just
respect him that much as a judge who they find has been devoted to the
law and the Constitution. Imagine that. That is what we

[[Page S5039]]

should expect in anybody who serves as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
A law professor from Yale wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last
week titled ``A liberal's case for Brett Kavanaugh.'' The professor
called Judge Kavanaugh ``a superb nominee'' and said that ``it is hard
to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge
Kavanaugh.''
Another liberal law professor called him a ``highly qualified
mainstream conservative judge.'' He cited Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning
as ``an example of the judging ideal, setting aside ideology and party
politics, and just trying to get the law right.'' That is a liberal
former law professor. He said Judge Kavanaugh gives ``an independent
judiciary the job it is supposed to do: Interpret the law.''
There are lawyers who have appeared before Judge Kavanaugh who said
the same things. I am not a lawyer, I haven't done these sorts of
things, but I understand there are surveys of lawyers who appear before
judges in court, people who have won cases and people who have lost
cases. They put up their ideas about what they thought about the judge
afterward.
Across the board, they called him ``an excellent judge.'' They said
that he ``has a history of excellent legal argument and analysis,''
someone who can think intellectually, think clearly, and come up with a
legal argument and analysis to make the assessment, to apply the law as
written. One lawyer actually said: ``It is daunting and humbling to be
in front of that brainpower.'' This was an anonymous survey of lawyers
who appear before Judge Kavanaugh. I don't know if they won or lost,
but people get to put in their opinions, winners and losers, after
cases in anonymous surveys. ``It is daunting and humbling to be in
front of that brainpower.'' This wasn't people just trying to kiss up
to the judge to win favor in a case; these are results from people
after the case who were just telling it like it is. ``Excellent legal
judgment,'' they say.
If you look beyond the courtroom, people are just as willing to talk
about Judge Kavanaugh's character as a person, not just a judge. That
is part of it--to look at somebody's legal philosophy, their intellect,
and their character--when trying to assess a judge who has been
nominated, to say: Is this person the right person to be a Justice on
the Supreme Court?
The Washington Post even ran a piece by a woman who knows Judge
Kavanaugh because he coaches her daughter's basketball team. She wrote
that she was impressed by ``his traits of personal kindness,
leadership, and willingness to help when called on.''

There are three things I look for in a nominee for the Supreme Court:
judicial philosophy, a strong intellect, and a solid character. What we
are hearing is overwhelming evidence from people who know him that
Judge Kavanaugh has all of these qualities. He is someone who takes the
law and the Constitution at face value.
The Constitution is a legal document, not a living document, and it
was built for certainty. He knows that a judge's job is to ``interpret
the law,'' not to legislate from the bench, ``not to make the law or
make policy.'' That is what he actually said in a speech last year.
He has an extremely strong intellect, and I can't imagine there is
anyone out there who can deny that. ``It is daunting and humbling to be
in front of that brainpower''--this is what one of the lawyers who
appeared before him said. And he is a person of solid character. That
is what we are hearing from people who have known him over the years
from being extremely active in the community. The New York Times
summarized it: ``A conservative stalwart wins praise for his intellect
and civility.''
So what is there for Democrats to come to the floor and object to?
Why are they objecting to all of this? Why are some Democrats already
saying they oppose a judge known for his intellect and civility? They
were actually saying it before he was even named by President Trump.
Whomever President Trump names, they are going to vote no. It is
astonishing to see Democrats making that decision. Then they are asking
for reams and reams of documents after they have already said they are
against Judge Kavanaugh. What are they looking for? It is amazing.
That is what I believe the big difference is between Republicans and
Democrats in Washington: Republican Presidents choose judges and
justices to follow the law; Democratic Presidents seem to pick judges
and justices who are guaranteed to push liberal policies and liberal
agendas, preconceived notions of how they should rule on a case before
they hear the facts. They know the way they are going to go, maybe
using things like emotion, sympathy, and empathy. The Constitution is a
legal document.
Even though you have legal experts from around the political world
and around the spectrum of all sides of the aisle who praise his
intellect and civility, it is not good enough for the liberal activists
in this country. They don't even want to consider Judge Kavanaugh's
qualifications, and they have said it here on the floor of the Senate
and on television, if you listen. They are already making opposition to
his nomination a liberal litmus test for Democrats in this Senate, and
I am sorry to say that more than a few Democrats seem to be playing
along. We have seen Democrats in the Senate who have already said that
they don't care about Judge Kavanaugh's intellect; they don't care that
he is ``just trying to get the law right''; they don't care that, as
one lawyer said, ``it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials
as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.''
When you have someone with these qualifications, Senators ought to be
looking at his record. They should look at the 300 decisions he has
written in 12 years on the bench. It is absolutely the right thing to
look at. They should meet him and talk with him.
We have just begun this confirmation hearing process. I hope that
more Democrats in the Senate will have an open mind about this nominee.
I hope they will consider the kind of person we should have on the
Supreme Court and then make their decisions about whether Judge
Kavanaugh has those qualities. From what I have seen, he absolutely
does.

I plan to continue to look into his record and listen to people who
know him best. I plan to sit down and talk with him. Everything I have
seen so far tells me that this is someone who is exactly the kind of
Justice we need on the Supreme Court.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

National Security

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, to my colleagues, let me just say that
we must speak out and act.
President Trump's appearance with Russia's President Putin--a U.S.
President capitulating to a strongman dictator, unprecedented in
American history--compromised America's national security and brings
into question whether America can be relied upon as the leader of the
free world.
With Mr. Trump standing with Mr. Putin while he discredited America's
investigation into Russian meddling--this is an American President,
with a dictator, challenging the investigation being done against
Russia--the President questioned the conclusions of U.S. intelligence
agencies. He left unchallenged Mr. Putin's lies and illegal military
invasions.
In short, Mr. Trump did Mr. Putin's bidding. In Russia, they are
smiling; at the White House, they are scrambling.
Congress must speak out and act. Congress must repudiate the
President's actions to make clear to the American people and the world
that Russia, directed by Mr. Putin, attacked our free election system
in 2016 and tried to tip the scales in favor of Mr. Trump.
Russia illegally invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine and illegally
annexed Crimea, which the United States must make clear we will never
recognize. Russia, under Mr. Putin, murders its political opponents and
journalists. Russia has interfered in the politics of several European
democratic states.
Six months ago, I authored, on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Democrats, a report entitled ``Putin's Asymmetrical Assault
on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National
Security.''
I sent a copy of that report to President Trump and hoped that he
would absorb it and use it in his meeting with

[[Page S5040]]

Mr. Putin. Unfortunately, he either didn't read it or didn't heed the
advice in that report.
That report spells out in detail the asymmetrical arsenal that Mr.
Putin uses. Yes, he uses his military, propaganda, and cyber; he
supports organized crime and corruption, weaponizes energy, and
supports fringe political groups, all to attack our democratic system
of government.
The report spells out numerous recommendations for steps we should
take to protect our national security against what Russia is trying to
do to us. The report spells out several recommendations I just want to
underscore today. We urge the President to assert Presidential
leadership and launch a national response, an interagency response, so
we make it clear that we will not tolerate this.
Mr. Trump has done just the opposite. He has downplayed any
significance to what Russia has done, has not allowed us to have a
coordinated effort with the executive branch, and has fought what
Congress has tried to do in giving him additional resources in order to
prepare us against what Mr. Putin is doing.
The report goes on to further recommend that we expose and freeze
Kremlin-linked dirty money. The administration has not done that.
It goes on to say that we should subject state hybrid threat actors
to an escalating sanctions regime. Here Congress did act. We passed the
CAATSA statute, which requires--these are mandatory sanctions against
Russia because of what they did to us in 2016 and what they did in
regard to the Ukraine and their other activities. This administration
has not fully utilized those sanctions that are available under the
legislation we passed.
The report calls for publicizing the Kremlin's global malign
influence efforts and building an international coalition to counter
hybrid threats. Mr. Trump did just the opposite in his most recent
foreign trip. In his performance in Brussels with NATO and then later
in London, he not only took the opportunity to criticize two of our
closest allies, Mrs. Merkel in Germany and Ms. May in London, England--
the U.K.--but he also challenged the unity of Europe, weighing in with
regard to Brexit and the politics of Brexit. That is not how the
President brings unity among our allies in order to stand tall against
the threats of Russia.
The report goes on to say that we need to build global cyber defenses
and norms. Congress has appropriated funds; the administration has not
fully utilized those funds.
We need to hold social media companies accountable. We see the
infiltration of Russia into our social media platforms. Europe has
already taken action to make sure that it identifies and is protected
against infiltration of foreign entities getting involved in trying to
influence policy in their country. The United States, under Mr. Trump,
has not taken similar action.
First and foremost, we need to recognize Russia for what it is
today--not the Russian people, but under the leadership of Mr. Putin,
Russia is an adversary. They are against our system of government, and
they are trying to bring down our system of government.
I saw the President's tweet this morning, and I just want to
acknowledge that we want to have relations with all countries in the
world. I want the relationship between the United States and Russia to
be on a better plateau, but it has to be under our terms, not Mr.
Putin's terms. That is the problem with what the President did in
Helsinki. He allowed Mr. Putin to control the dialogue and allowed Mr.
Putin to look as though everything he is doing is reasonable when it is
not. If you give Mr. Putin space, he will push to fill it, and then he
will go even further.
Ten years ago, Mr. Putin saw an opportunity. He saw an opportunity to
put a wedge in regard to the NATO expansion and the growth of a unified
Western Front. He saw that opportunity in the independent state of
Georgia, and he took advantage of that. Russian troops invaded. They
are still there today, and Georgia is still not part of NATO.
Mr. Putin's strategy paid off. The Western World gave him that open
space; he took advantage of it.
In 2014, Mr. Putin, based upon his experience in Georgia--and also,
by the way, based upon his experience in Moldova--said ``Well, we can
do the same in Ukraine,'' and they invaded Ukraine. They took over
Crimea; they illegally annexed Crimea, and guess what. Ukraine, today,
is nowhere closer to being a NATO ally as a result of Mr. Putin's
strategies.
It worked for him, not for us. That is not in our national security
interest. The President gives him a pass.
They tried it in Montenegro. Russia financed operations of a coup to
try to prevent the parliamentary elections from having a government
that would ratify NATO. The people of Montenegro stood up and said no.
They fought it, and they won. Now Montenegro is a NATO ally. We can't
give this space to Mr. Putin.
Mr. Putin, not just in the United States, but in Europe, interfered
in elections. But what happened in 2016 in America? This is a fact;
this is not subject to debate. We know that Russia, directed by Mr.
Putin, interfered in our elections. That has been confirmed by our
intelligence community. It has been confirmed by our own Intelligence
Committee here in the U.S. Senate. This is not something that you
debate. We know that is a fact. We understand the President has tried
to convince the public here in America that may not be true, but those
are the facts. We know the facts. We are privy to the facts.
We know that Russia interfered in our elections, but the message from
Helsinki, President Trump's message to President Putin, is: OK. Let's
move on. That gives space to Mr. Putin. His calculation: 2018 is fair
game. I can do whatever I want in the U.S. elections. After all, I know
the President will be on my side and will not hold me, Russia,
accountable for interference in the U.S. elections.
That is certainly not in our interest. Congress must speak out and
act. We have to protect this country. It is our responsibility. We are
an independent branch of government. We need to speak out on behalf of
our Nation.
Let me just lay out issues that I hope we will work on not only in
response to the President's summit with Mr. Putin but also because it
is our responsibility as an independent branch of government to speak
out for America.
First, we need to protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation.
I am not going to prejudge what the Mueller investigation will come in
with. I have confidence that Mr. Mueller will do his work.
Mr. Trump has been openly critical over and over and over and over
again about this investigation. It is outrageous that the head of the
executive branch of government is trying to compromise the checks and
balances in our own system, but we have to make sure that the checks
and balances remain. We have to make sure that we protect the integrity
of the Mueller investigation.
Congress needs to pass legislation, and there is legislation that has
been recommended by our Judiciary Committee that would protect the
integrity of the Mueller campaign. We should take up that legislation
and pass it immediately.
I said that I will not prejudge what Mr. Mueller will come in with.
We know there are people who have been indicted. We know that Russia
has been engaged in the election. We know that some Americans were
involved.
Was there collusion with the Trump campaign? It will be up to the
Mueller investigation to give us those findings. But we do know from
Helsinki that Mr. Trump openly colluded with Mr. Putin in regard to an
orchestrated message coming out of Helsinki.
Secondly, Congress needs to exercise its oversight capacity with
hearings. That is our responsibility.
I was pleased to see that Senator Corker announced that Mike Pompeo,
the Secretary of State, will be before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on Wednesday of next week. This meeting is long overdue.
Let me just remind my colleagues that this meeting is being set up to
get our very first briefing on what happened in Singapore in the
President's meeting with Kim Jong Un in North Korea. We haven't had a
single briefing in Congress on the North Korean summit.
Now we have Mr. Pompeo coming up here for North Korea. I urge Mr.
Pompeo and Senator Corker to make sure that Mr. Pompeo is prepared and
has the time not only to address North

[[Page S5041]]

Korea but also to address what happened in Helsinki. We have a right,
an obligation, to find out.
While we are able to question representatives from the executive
branch in regard to Helsinki, let's make sure that we have a chance to
talk to Jon Huntsman, our Ambassador to Russia, to get his take, his
assessment of what happened. We need to talk to our Director of
National Intelligence as to his assessments. We need to have oversight
hearings here in Congress.
Most importantly, we need to understand what happened in the room--
where it happened--where Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump spent over 2 hours. We
have no information about what happened in that room. We have a
responsibility as Members of Congress to understand what discussions
took place, what commitments in regard to our elections, in regard to
Ukraine, in regard to Syria, in regard to North Korea, in regard to
Iran. We have a lot of interest in knowing what took place, and we
should get that information now. That is our constitutional
responsibility. We need to speak out and act to carry out our
responsibility.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a constitutional issue of what
we do. We are a check and balance in the system. The public expects us
to act that way and to get that information.
We should also strengthen the sanctions regime against Russia. I say
that mindful that the bill we passed last year, the CAASTA bill--I
worked very closely with my colleagues in drafting that bill--provides
a whole array of options to President Trump to impose new sanctions
against Russia for their activities. Many of these sanctions, by the
way, are mandatory. The President has no discretion. I say that with
some disbelief because these sanctions have not been imposed yet, even
though they are mandatory sanctions.
So Congress needs to speak out and act. We need to speak out to make
sure these sanctions are indeed imposed, and we have to make sure we
strengthen the sanctions regime, if the President needs more of a
reminder or needs additional tools in order to act against Russia. One
thing we want to make crystal clear is, we don't want to see the
weakening of any of these sanctions. I think many of us know about
conversations that took place in the past about Mr. Trump's thoughts
about easing up some of these sanctions. We have to make sure that, in
fact, they are not.
It was interesting that during the summit, there was a conversation
against Mr. Browder about the Magnitsky sanctions that have been
imposed by Congress. Browder worked with Senator McCain on that
legislation. We have to make sure those sanctions remain in place and
are strengthened, not weakened. That is our responsibility to make sure
that takes place.
We must also make sure that we protect the integrity of our election
system. We have appropriated funds for this. There is legislation that
is pending by Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. We now
know we are even more vulnerable. We have seen some indictments of late
that point out what Russia could be doing in the 2018 elections, which
are only less than 4 months away.
One of the fundamental principles of our democracy is our free and
fair elections. We have a responsibility to make sure they are free
from international tampering and the influence Russia may try to play
in this election cycle. We need to take concrete steps to make sure
that is done.
Lastly, I suggest that the Senate go on record repudiating President
Trump's actions in Helsinki. The Republican leadership should bring to
the floor of the U.S. Senate such a resolution. It is our
responsibility to consider such a resolution.
By passing such a resolution, we can restore confidence to the
American people and to the world that the United States, indeed, is the
leader of the free world.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Andrew Oldham
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Oldham is only 39 years old. He checks the Federalist Society
box, having been a member since law school of that rightwing legal
group that vets all of President Trump's nominees. Mr. Oldham has spent
much of his career litigating on behalf of Republican elected officials
in Texas State government, where he worked on challenges to the
Affordable Care Act, the DACA and DAPA programs, the Voting Rights Act,
Fair Housing Act regulations, ``Ban the Box'' regulations on job
applications, and Clean Air Act regulations, among many others.
Mr. Oldham's extreme ideology is apparent from statements he has made
in his personal capacity. At his nomination hearing, he refused to say
that the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education was
correctly decided. That was an astonishing moment. Every Supreme Court
nominee who has been asked this question has said he or she believed
Brown v. Board was correctly decided. In recent hearings before the
Judiciary Committee, nominees have answered yes to this question
without hesitation; yet Mr. Oldham wouldn't answer.
If a nominee refuses to say that Brown v. Board was correctly
decided, it certainly raises questions in my mind about the nominee's
judgment, but that is not all Mr. Oldham has said.
At his hearing, he refused to say whether he agreed that voter
discrimination still exists in the United States.
He gave an interview in 2016 where he described the Supreme Court as
``the most dangerous branch'' and said ``they often fail to enforce our
sacred rights that are in the Constitution, while creating rights that
are not.'' Keep in mind, this is a Supreme Court where the majority of
justices were appointed by Republican Presidents.
He gave a speech to the Federalist Society in 2016 where he said, ``I
have particular things that I think are illegitimate in the way that we
conduct modern American law.'' He went on to say, ``It's not that I
disagree with a particular Department of Labor regulation or a
particular IRS regulation; it is the entire existence of this edifice
of administrative law that is constitutionally suspect.''
He also wrote in a law review article that ``the Sherman Act, as it
is currently understood, is unconstitutional.'' The Sherman Act is one
of our foundational antitrust laws; it prohibits monopolies and
restraints of trade.
Mr. Oldham's views are clearly outside the judicial mainstream. His
own words and writings show an extreme ideological agenda.
Of course, like all of President Trump's nominees, he has promised he
would cast all his views aside if confirmed and simply follow the law.
But time after time, we have seen these nominees get confirmed to the
bench and then start interpreting the law to produce outcomes that
align with their preexisting, Federalist Society-approved views and
side with corporations and wealthy elites over working Americans.
Mr. Oldham is ideologically extreme, he has shown instances of
terrible judgment, and he has said things that would make litigants
question whether he could be a fair and impartial judge. I oppose his
nomination.
Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the integrity of the
character and the career of Andy Oldham, the President's nominee to be
a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Andy represents the best of what Texas's legal community has to offer
to our Federal courts. Andy Oldham was born to high school sweethearts.
His parents, like his grandparents before them, knew struggles and knew
hard work.
Andy's father was raised in a trailer with four other siblings, and
Andy's grandfather spent years away from his family, first fighting in
World War II and then in Korea. His mother was raised by her divorced
mother, and Andy's mother helped manage the household starting at age
8.
Growing up in these humble beginnings taught both of Andy's parents
the value of hard work. His father drove a cement truck and cleaned
deep fryers in restaurants to pay his way through college. His mother
was one of

[[Page S5042]]

the first women to attend the University of Virginia. Together, both
enrolled in the Medical College of Virginia, where his father became a
doctor and his mother became a dentist.
Andy's parents had enormous student debts to pay, and so Andy learned
what it was like to grow up with little as well, but he likewise
learned the value of an education from his parents.
Andy went to the University of Virginia on a full academic
scholarship, graduating with a perfect 4.0 GPA and at the top of his
class. He then became a Truman Scholar and went on to attend Harvard
Law School.
Andy graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude and clerked for Judge
David Sentelle on the DC Circuit, one of the most respected Federal
appellate judges in the country, and then clerked for Justice Samuel
Alito on the Supreme Court of the United States.
He then worked as an attorney advisor for 2 years in the Office of
Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice under the George W.
Bush administration.
Andy then went into private practice at Kellogg Hansen here in
Washington, DC. From there, Andy went to the Texas solicitor general's
office to serve as the deputy solicitor general of Texas. I can state
that office is usually a pretty tight ship.
After that, he joined Governor Abbott to serve as his legal counsel.
He is now the general counsel for the Governor and has spent all but 3
years of his career in public service.
If I may say, it shows a depth of character and a devotion to his
country that Andy would stay in public service for so long, so
dutifully, while forgoing the great rewards that come with private
practice. He is devoted to the practice of law, and over the years,
Andy has displayed a keen understanding of the Constitution and how it
applies and guides us to this very day.
I am confident Andy will not substitute his own policy preferences,
his own opinions for the rule of law, but he will instead serve the
people of Texas and the American people by respecting the law as
written--as written in the Constitution and as written in Federal law--
passed by this Congress and signed by the President. Our courts and our
country are well-served by judges with this dedication, wisdom, and
forbearance.
In his career, Andy has argued across the country in State and
Federal courts. He has appeared and argued numerous times before the
Fifth Circuit, and he has argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has earned widespread praise from both Democrats and Republicans,
and he was recommended to the Judiciary Committee by esteemed legal
voices from both the left and right. Andy is respected across the
political spectrum. I know my colleagues in the Senate will return the
same respect when they vote today to confirm Andy Oldham as a circuit
judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Andy will be the fifth judge we have confirmed for the Fifth Circuit,
one of the finest courts in the country--a court I have been privileged
to argue before many times. Andy will be the third Texan and fifth
circuit judge in the last year and a half, and that, I think, is one of
the greatest legacies of President Trump and this Republican Senate;
namely, the confirmation of principled constitutionalists to the
Federal court; judges who will be faithful to the Constitution and Bill
of Rights, who will stand steadfastly to protect our fundamental
liberties, to protect free speech and religious liberty, to protect the
Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, to protect the Tenth
Amendment, the fundamental liberties of the people against ever-
expanding Federal power.
This is a legacy that was front and center as to why the American
people elected this majority, and it is a legacy that will benefit
Texans and Americans for generations to come.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Trump-Putin Summit

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we all know, in this country, in 2016,
the Russian Government weighed a covert, multifaceted criminal campaign
to interfere in our elections. We now know it was intended to help
then-Candidate Donald Trump win the Presidency. We don't know the full
impact of Russia's interference, but it is beyond debate that it
happened.
Russia, as we now found out, used inflammatory propaganda--it
actually was fake news--attempting to suppress Democratic turnout and
boost support for Donald Trump. They also stole communications
belonging to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
campaign, which were then strategically released to maximize their
impact. They were released at times when they could counter negative
news stories about Donald Trump.
Just last week, 12 Russian intelligence officers were charged with
hacking campaign officials' emails and State election boards. In just
over a year--in what may rank as the most productive special counsel
investigation in our Nation's history--32 people and 3 companies have
been charged or pled guilty as part of the Russian investigation. We
likely will not know the full extent of Russia's interference until the
special counsel's investigation is complete.
But what is clear--and this is what should concern Republicans and
Democrats alike--is that our democracy, our great country, was attacked
by a foreign adversary. And two days ago, on an international stage,
standing shoulder to shoulder with Vladimir Putin, our President sided
with that attacker.
Instead of forcefully condemning Russia's attack on our democracy,
its role in annexing Crimea, poisoning individuals with chemical
weapons on the soil of one of our closest allies, Russia's downing of a
passenger airline with nearly 300 innocent civilians onboard, or
undermining democracies around the world, our President offered only
praise for the authoritarian President Putin. He then repeated his
conspiracy theories about the FBI and called the Russia investigation a
``witch-hunt''--denigrating our law enforcement institutions, while
standing beside the foe they work so hard to protect all Americans
from--Republicans and Democrats alike.
In my 44 years as a Senator, I have never seen anything like it. I
can think of no Republican President and no Democratic President who
would ever do this. I never thought it would be possible in our country
before President Trump took office.
Yesterday, the President attempted to walk back his decision to side
with Russia over our own intelligence agencies. He attempted to do it
because of the criticism he got from both Republicans and Democrats,
but as many of my colleagues told me would happen, President Trump
walked back his walk back. He reiterated that the interference ``could
have been other people. There are a lot of people out there.''
This morning on Twitter--where apparently he does his deepest
thinking--he claimed that people at the higher ends of intelligence
loved his press conference in Helsinki. I do not think anyone here
doubts that the President meant what he said and said what he meant in
Helsinki. And, after their two-hour private meeting in Helsinki, I do
not think President Putin has any doubt either.
We have to know that Russia shares neither our values nor our
interests. Russia is not our friend. Of course, we want to see improved
relations with Russia on Syria, on nuclear proliferation, and on many
critical issues, but for that to happen, Russia needs to respect our
democracy and values. We must not slouch down to theirs.
The United States is the leader of the free world. The free world is
under threat, as it has so often been. But these threats are not
supposed to come from within.
Just moments ago, when asked if Russia is still targeting the United
States, the President inexplicably said ``no.''
That is not the truth.
Russia is still targeting the United States. This is despite his
Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, confirming just last week
that Russia is, indeed, still targeting our digital infrastructure and
interfering in our democracy. Director Coats compared it to the

[[Page S5043]]

warning signs that emerged prior to the 9/11 attacks, but the President
denies it is happening.
I know Director Coats. I served with him when he was a Republican
Senator in this body. I know he would not say this if it were not so.
Notwithstanding the President's saying that Russia is not targeting us,
his own Director of National Intelligence says they are. We can't trust
this President's judgment when it comes to Russia.
Remember, the President takes an oath to protect and defend our
Nation. When it comes to Russia, it appears he does not intend to abide
by his oath to defend and protect our Nation. This Congress is going to
be derelict in its duty if it takes no action.
All of us have to speak with a single voice in this moment--
Republicans and Democrats alike. We should all condemn the President's
actions, which were as dangerous as they were shameful.
These condemnations are important, but words are not enough.
Remember, Congress is a coequal branch of government. Remember that the
Senate is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. Let's act like
it.
The President, obviously, can't be trusted to keep his hands off of
the Russia investigation. By denigrating it at every opportunity and by
dismissing its lead investigator last year, he has repeatedly failed
the test.
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed legislation with a
strong bipartisan vote. Republicans and Democrats alike voted to
protect the special counsel's investigation. That legislation is before
the Senate. Let's enact it into law. Let's take what Republicans and
Democrats together said in the Judiciary Committee--that we will
protect the special counsel's investigation. Let's vote up or down.
Let's do it and enact it into law.
It is often said that the only thing President Putin responds to is
strength. Let's show him that here in the Congress, we stand united in
opposition to his ongoing attempts to attack our democracy. Believe me,
they are ongoing right at this moment. Let's pass stronger sanctions
targeting him and the oligarchs who enable him, who continue to help
him because they become billionaires by doing it. Let's pass a
resolution making it clear that if President Trump chooses to stand
with President Putin, then he stands alone. The European Union is not
our foe. And President Putin is not our friend. Our allies around the
world, especially those that have stood with us since World War II, are
looking at us at this moment. They are questioning whether the United
States will be a reliable partner in the face of creeping
authoritarianism, both at home and abroad. Let's show them where we
stand.
This is not about politics. It is not about Republicans or Democrats.
This is about who we are as a country and what we stand for as
Americans--whether we stand for democracy; whether we stand for
freedom, including the freedom of the press; whether we stand for the
rule of law; whether we stand for truth; and whether we stand for
America. As a Vermonter and a Senator, I know where I stand. It is time
we stand together.

Blue-Slip Tradition

Madam President, I believe I have colleagues on the floor who are
going to make a unanimous consent request, but before they do, I feel
obliged to speak up about the steady erosion of the norms and
traditions that protect the Senate's unique constitutional role with
respect to lifetime appointments to our Federal courts.
We should all be alarmed by the Judiciary Committee's abrupt change
in course when it comes to respect for blue slips, which allow home-
State Senators to have a word in what happens. This should concern us
all. For much of this body's history, blue slips have given meaning to
the constitutional requirement of ``advice and consent.'' They have
protected the prerogatives of home-State Senators, and they have
ensured fairness and comity in the Senate.
When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, under both the Bush
and Obama administrations, not a single judicial nominee received a
hearing without first receiving both home-State Senators' positive blue
slips. Regardless of who was in the Oval Office, I steadfastly defended
blue slips because I firmly believed in both their constitutional and
institutional importance. I also firmly believed in the prerogatives of
home-State Senators and the need to ensure that the White House works
in good faith with those Senators.
My decision to defend blue slips was not without some controversy. I
faced significant pressure from my own party's leadership to hold
hearings for President Obama's nominees who had not received positive
blue slips from Republican Senators. I was criticized by liberal
advocacy groups and major news outlets like the New York Times, but I
resisted such pressure because I believed then--and I still believe
now--that certain principles matter more than party.
All of us, whether Democrat or Republican, should care about good-
faith consultation when it comes to nominees from our own States. The
reasons for this are both principled and pragmatic. We know our States.
We know who is qualified to fill lifetime judicial seats that will have
a tremendous impact on our neighbors and communities.
This week, the Senate will vote whether to confirm a nominee to the
Ninth Circuit, Ryan Bounds, opposed by not one but both of his home-
State Senators. Senators Wyden and Merkley were cut out of the
nomination process entirely. The White House interviewed Bounds and
fast-tracked his nomination without consulting either senator. If Mr.
Bounds is confirmed, it will mark the first time in the history of the
Senate that a judicial nominee is confirmed despite opposition from
both home-State Senators.
My concern is not about a mere piece of paper. My concern is that we
are failing to protect the fundamental rights of home-State Senators,
and we are failing in our constitutional duty to provide our advice and
consent on a President's nominees. That should concern all of us. The
Senate should never function as a mere rubberstamp for nominees seeking
lifetime appointments to our Federal judiciary.
Without blue slips, nothing prevents a California nominee from being
appointed to a Texas court. Nothing prevents our State selection
committees from being completely ignored by the White House. That is
what we are seeing today. The Oregon bipartisan judicial selection
commission overwhelmingly voted that Mr. Bounds--who misled the
commission about his controversial writings--did not deserve its
recommendation.
Some may dismiss these warnings, but I have served in the Senate long
enough to know that winds tend to change direction. Inevitably, the
majority becomes the minority. The White House changes hands. I suspect
Republicans will rekindle their love of blue slips if they find
themselves in the minority under a Democratic President, as they did
under President Obama and during my chairmanship. That is precisely why
maintaining a single, consistent policy with respect to blue slips is
so critical.
That is why I will vote against Mr. Bounds. If we abandon our
longstanding traditions to change partisan expediency, that provides
only fleeting advantage and inflicts lasting harm in this body. We are
better off when we follow the tradition we always have. We foolishly
hurt ourselves and our individual States when we allow ourselves to
step away from it. I would urge all Senators to ensure that home-State
Senators are provided the same courtesies during the Trump
administration that they received from both Republican and Democratic
Judiciary chairmen during the Obama administration. I ask my fellow
Senators to oppose Mr. Bound's nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am about to engage in a brief colloquy
about a unanimous consent request with my colleague, the Senator from
California.
I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, I
be able to have 5 minutes to do that prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 118

Mr. LEE. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of
Calendar No.

[[Page S5044]]

297, S. 118; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed
to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and
passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
rise today to express concern with S. 118, the Reinforcing American-
Made Products Act, because it would preempt California's strong ``Made
in America'' labeling standards.
California requires that at least 90 percent of a final product be
composed of American-made parts to use the label--the strongest
standard in the Nation.
This bill would undo California's tough standard, setting instead a
watered-down national standard. Companies could then confuse consumers
by flooding the market with products sold under the ``Made in America''
label that were built using more foreign-made components. That is why
the California attorney general and the Consumer Federation of
California support keeping California's strong standards in place.

The ``Made in America'' label should promote U.S. manufacturing and
give consumers confidence that they are supporting American jobs.
Consumers want to know that products bearing the ``Made in America''
label are truly made in America. Because this would undermine that
confidence and preempt California's strong standards, I believe this
bill should not move by unanimous consent. Regretfully, for those
reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my
distinguished colleague, the Senator from California.
When Americans see a ``Made in USA'' label on a product, it is a
source of great pride. It represents the American virtues of innovation
and industriousness. It is a symbol of support for American
manufacturing jobs and high-quality products across the board, and it
often spurs American consumers to buy those very products.
The Federal Trade Commission currently enforces a difficult standard
for products to claim the ``Made in USA'' label. It requires that all
or virtually all of a product must be made in the United States, and it
has issued lengthy guidance documents establishing the rules. However,
one State holds a different standard--one that is nearly impossible for
businesses to meet. Under California's law, if more than 5 percent of
the components of a product are manufactured outside the United States,
even if that means just a few bolts or a few screws, then that product
cannot be labeled ``Made in USA.''
While companies could legally boast this claim in 49 of the 50 States
under the Federal standards set by the Federal Trade Commission, they
are often unable to do so because of the flow of interstate commerce.
Most manufacturers sell wholesale to national and international
distributors who then disperse products throughout the country. As a
result, companies must label products according to the most rigid
definition in order to protect themselves from costly litigation. In
short, one State--one single State--is effectively governing how
interstate commerce is conducted with regard to ``Made in USA''
labeling throughout the country.
The Reinforcing American-Made Products Act would solve this problem
by ensuring that the current Federal definition is the supreme labeling
law in interstate commerce without weakening the strong ``Made in USA''
national standard. In addition to upholding the Constitution, which
empowers Congress--this body--to regulate interstate commerce, this
legislation would provide clarity and consistency, which would help
American companies avoid unnecessary hardships and frivolous lawsuits.
In the global marketplace, it is increasingly difficult for small
American companies to stay afloat, let alone to compete. This reform
would ultimately encourage manufacturing in America and use American
tools and resources. It would also help so many of the small businesses
and ordinary American workers who are currently being left behind, and
helping them ought to be our goal.
This bill passed unanimously out of committee, and it has broad
bipartisan support. I am disappointed that it is being blocked by the
few people who do not support it when it could benefit all 50 of our
States. We should exercise this authority, and we should open the flow
of interstate commerce.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Oldham
nomination?
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Ex.]

YEAS--50

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

____________________