Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Helen Keller Services, HKS, on its 125th anniversary, which will be celebrated at its gala at the Liberty Warehouse in Brooklyn, NY, on September 13, 2018.

Since 1893, the Helen Keller Services has been committed to improving the lives of individuals who are blind, visually impaired, or have combined hearing and vision loss. The talented and dedicated staff at the Helen Keller Services has made over 60,000 visits to the homes and communities of individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Over 900,000 children ages 3-5 have received preschool vision screenings to ensure they are equipped for success in the classroom. The organization has placed over 14,000 individuals in jobs with the help of their programs. The totality of their impact over the past 125 years is hard to overstate.

This fall the organization will move its headquarters to a new 44,000-square-foot facility located at 180 Livingston Street in Brooklyn. This modern structure will house new classrooms and training rooms, a specialized gym for prekindergarten students, new offices and workstations, a Low Vision Center, and a new technology training space. This will aide HKS in serving the blind and visually impaired community for decades to come.

While the scope of its services has changed and expanded substantially over the past century and a quarter, allowing HKS to touch the lives of countless blind, visually impaired, and deaf-blind men women and children, what has not changed is its steadfast commitment to Brooklyn, the surrounding communities, and the entire New York region. I congratulate the Helen Keller Services on achieving this milestone and thank them for their outstanding service to New York.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee continues its hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. During yesterday's session, the American people got to see a nominee who refused to answer even the most basic, fundamental questions about his jurisprudence. They got to see a coverup of Judge Kavanaugh's records by himself and the Republican members of the committee.

When Judge Kavanaugh was asked specific questions about important issues that might someday come before a court, like women's reproductive freedom, he pleaded the need for independence and refused to answer. When Democratic Senators asked him hypothetical questions, instead, to avoid the possibility of the judge tipping his hand on a future case, then he said he wouldn't engage in hypotheticals--can't talk about specific cases, can't talk about general situations. He is ducking. He is hiding.

Judge Kavanaugh was asked how he might view the constitutionality of a Presidential subpoena arising from the Mueller probe. He said he could not tip his hand about a potential issue before the Court. Asked, then, about the constitutionality of a Presidential subpoena in general, he said he would not engage in a hypothetical. This is not a hypothetical issue; this is a fundamental constitutional issue.

There is no legal, ethical, or judicial reason for Judge Kavanaugh to avoid directly answering these questions unless he has something to hide. If the nominee can't answer questions about already decided cases, pending cases, or hypothetical cases, honestly, what is there left to talk about--charity work and basketball? Your favorite Federalist Paper?

How does the nominee expect the Senate and the public to evaluate him? He doesn't. He doesn't want it. His lifelong record as a hard- right warrior, if he talked about it and talked about his views, would rule him out, so he hides. That should not happen when it comes to nominating one of the most powerful positions in American society.

Let me just mention a few topics Judge Kavanaugh ducked.

Judge Kavanaugh would not expand or even revisit his views on Presidential power, where he already enumerated some in a Minnesota Law Review article. As Senator Klobuchar pointed out, he has already talked about them publicly. Why can't he elaborate? He has given his view on that one. Very bad view. Does he still hold it? Nobody knows.

Judge Kavanaugh could not assure the American people he would uphold the healthcare law, including protections for up to 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions, protections that are under threat right now by a lawsuit in Texas.

He could not assure the American people he would uphold the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. He did repeat a view, which he reportedly shared with Senator Collins, that Roe v. Wade was settled precedent of the Court, but as Judge Kavanaugh himself points out in a 2003 email made public this morning, ``I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since [the] Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.'' That is an email from Brett Kavanaugh explaining that Roe vs. Wade is only settled law until a majority of the Court decides it isn't.

Since the time he wrote that email, one more Justice has joined the Court likely to overturn Roe. Judge Kavanaugh could be the deciding vote, and he will not even talk about it. That is an issue that affects all Americans. It is an issue that is so important to our jurisprudence. It is an absolute disgrace that a nominee for the Supreme Court refuses to talk about such a fundamental issue at the core of one of the great debates of American society and hides behind legal subterfuge, chicanery, so he doesn't have to speak--verbal chicanery.

I wonder why the Republican majority labeled the email about Roe v. Wade ``committee confidential'' until this morning. Was that email withheld for privacy reasons? No. National security reasons? No. It is ridiculous. The only explanation is that Judge Kavanaugh's record was being withheld for political reasons. They don't want the American people to see his view. If the American people knew that Judge Kavanaugh would decide against Roe v. Wade, as it seems this email feels he thinks he can, not bound by legal precedent if he changes his mind, if the Court changes its mind, they would rise up and say: Don't put him on the bench. So, instead, they hide the records.

My Republican colleagues set up an entire process to go around the nonpartisan National Archives, and it appears that the purpose was to hide documents that might shed real light on Judge Kavanaugh's actual record.

Now, finally, a little late in the game, the truth is coming out, but this is only the tip of the archives. These are the only documents that have slipped through the Republican filter. What else is hidden in Judge Kavanaugh's record? What else don't we know about the nominee? When did the Republican majority decide that

Supreme Court nominees should be like icebergs, only a small portion showing, while the real nominee lurks unseen underwater and potentially dangerous?

So I strongly support and commend the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in their efforts to make these confidential documents public. I stand with them. They did the right thing. The American people desire to see these documents.

In this case, committee confidential is a complete fiction, a subterfuge to avoid the American people knowing the real Brett Kavanaugh. The members of the committee should be praised, not chastised, for making these documents available. They did the right thing, and they had an obligation to do it. The Republican members of the committee should be ashamed of themselves--ashamed of themselves-- for participating in the administration and Judge Kavanaugh's coverup of his record. The Senate and the American people have a right to see the nominee's record, especially now, since the nominee appears unwilling to answer substantive questions about his views.

Whatever the rules may be of the Senate, they should not be twisted to ensure partisan advantage and prevent transparency and openness. They should not be twisted to cover up the truth rather than reveal it.

There is so much at stake in this Supreme Court nomination. Will Americans with preexisting conditions be able to get healthcare? Will women be able to make private personal choices about their medical care? Will LGBTQ Americans be able to marry whom they love? Will every American's constitutional right to vote be protected? Can the President of the United States be held accountable, especially at this time? We know how much we need that. Yet, at every turn, the Republican majority, the Trump administration, and Brett Kavanaugh have prevented the Senate and the American people from being truly able to vet a nominee who could affect the lives of Americans for a generation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the Republican majority on the Judiciary Committee is pressing forward with a confirmation hearing on a Supreme Court nominee whose record has been largely shielded from the Senate and the American public. Over 90 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's record has not been received by the Senate and may never be. What has been delivered to the committee was prescreened by a Republican lawyer, with no guidelines as to what we were receiving and what we were not. It is just whatever entered his whim. Of that small subset of prescreened documents--less than 10 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's full record--Chairman Grassley is prohibiting large segments from being shared with the public, without explanation.

Republicans are trying to jam through, with as little scrutiny as possible, a lifetime appointment to the Nation's highest Court, with the power to affect the lives of Americans for a generation. That is why it is so important for the Senate and the public to review the nominee's record--because healthcare, a woman's freedom to make medical decisions, civil rights, voting rights, and marriage equality all hang in the balance. The Republican majority is deliberately obstructing the Senate's constitutional duty to fairly and thoroughly conduct our advice and consent powers.

As a result, we will not consent to business as usual on the Senate floor today. This means the Senate will adjourn for the day after my two colleagues finish speaking.

I object.

First, let me thank my good friend--who did a great and outstanding job this morning on the Judiciary Committee--for his graciousness and thoughtfulness as always. I also thank my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings today on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Democrats on the committee have pointed out that over 40,000 of Judge Kavanaugh's documents were handed over to the committee last night. It is the latest insult in what has been an insulting process for reviewing the nominee's record on the issues. It has not just been insulting to Democrats in the Senate but insulting to the Senate as a whole and insulting to the American people: We can jam this through, and it doesn't matter what you think and what you need to know.

More than 90 percent of the nominee's record has been shielded from public scrutiny. The chairman keeps claiming that there are several hundred thousand pages that have been made available. That is not the point. If only 7 percent of the documents are made available, the question is, What looms in the other 93 percent? It is the percentage that matters because we want to know what is hidden.

Furthermore, we have no knowledge of why we were given these documents and not given the vast bulk of the documents. What is the rule? Is there some objective rule finding? They should make it public. Why? They haven't, and the reason is simple. The obvious conclusion-- and we can't prove it because we don't have the documents--is that in the 93 percent, there are things they don't want to be made public. Otherwise, there would be a set system, and they would say: Here is why you are getting this, and here is why you are not getting that.

Again, it is not the number; it is the percentage. Almost everything the Republicans requested with Elena Kagan and Sotomayor when they were in the minority--in our position now--was granted. Very little of what we have requested has been granted. So the question looms: What are they hiding?

I commend my colleagues, sincerely and strongly, for standing up and raising these issues this morning. The Judiciary Committee members were lending their voices to a large and growing chorus of people out in America who are deeply concerned about how this process has been run. Every member of the Judiciary Committee was eloquent and forceful in their clarifying of just how far the Republicans have gone to keep Judge Kavanaugh's record a secret. Here, for the highest Court in the land--which has huge power over every one of our lives in many different ways--we are hiding what he really thinks. Maybe it is because they don't want the American people to know what he really thinks.

Nonetheless, the Judiciary Committee proceedings are going forward even though the Republican majority has taken great pains to shield a great bulk of Kavanaugh's record from the American public. Since they are in the majority, they can do this against the will of all of the Democrats and of, probably, much of the American people, but it is so wrong. Let's review what we already know about this nominee.

For the bulk of his career, Brett Kavanaugh has been a loyal Republican foot soldier who has consistently found himself near the center of the most heated, partisan legal fights of the past

two decades. From the Starr report to Bush v. Gore and through the myriad controversies of the Bush White House, Brett Kavanaugh was front and center in representing the political interests of the Republicans. His service as a partisan warrior was rewarded with a judgeship, wherein he immediately began to establish a jurisprudence far outside the judicial mainstream.

As a judge, he ruled against commonsense gun safety measures. He ruled against commonsense environmental protections. He consistently ruled against the rulemaking powers of independent agencies. He went so far as to label the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, unconstitutional, and he has praised the dissents in both Roe and Casey, which are two landmark cases that established a woman's right to privacy with respect to her medical decisions.

Remember--we can't forget--Brett Kavanaugh was selected from a preapproved list of candidates that had been vetted by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation--two hard-right groups that are dedicated to the destruction of our healthcare law and the repeal of Roe v. Wade. He was selected by a President who explicitly promised to pick judges who would do those two things exactly.

Unlike with former nominees, Brett Kavanaugh has the special burden of explaining his views on these crucial issues. The President didn't just say: I am going to choose the best legal mind available. He said: I am going to choose someone who will repeal Roe. He said: I am going to choose someone who will overturn many of the healthcare protections that we have, as in the ACA. So he has a special obligation.

When I interviewed him in my office, he ducked. I asked him if he believed Planned Parenthood v. Casey was correctly decided, not whether it were precedent. That doesn't matter. Precedents change. Supreme Court Justices do it. I asked him whether it was correctly decided. He refused to say. He refused to say whether any restriction on a woman's reproductive freedom constituted an undue burden. There was nothing that I heard from Judge Kavanaugh in our interview to dispel the presumption that has been created by President Trump's litmus test that a Justice Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe and protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.

Judge Kavanaugh will, no doubt, refuse to answer these important questions in the committee hearings as well. We are not going to get clear answers. That is what judicial nominees have been taught to do. Yet, given how he was chosen--in his coming from a preappointed list-- that makes, No. 1, his obfuscation even more troubling. No. 2, it makes the need for documents all the more compelling.

Another area of examination this week should be of Judge Kavanaugh's views on Executive power and accountability. During his time in the White House, it seems that Judge Kavanaugh developed an adulation for powers of the Presidency. He said that Presidents should not be subject to investigations of criminal or civil wrongdoing while in office. He said that a President can refuse to enforce any law that he deems unconstitutional even if a court has ruled otherwise. In our meeting, he refused to say that a President must comply with a duly issued subpoena. Judge Kavanaugh also wrote that Presidents should be able to hire and fire, at will, the heads of independent agencies. In Brett Kavanaugh's jurisprudence, the Executive of the United States is nearer a King than a coequal branch of government.

At a time when the President of the United States routinely tests the bounds of powers of his office, at a time when the President disdains and routinely disparages the rule of law, at a time when the President has been named as a coconspirator in a Federal criminal case, Brett Kavanaugh's views on Executive power are more than dangerous; they are disqualifying.

This week, the Judiciary Committee has the task of scrutinizing Kavanaugh. I would remind my colleagues there is no legal standard, rule, or logic that prohibits nominees from answering questions that don't involve immediate and specific cases that are or could become before the Court. I would remind my colleagues that indications of stare decisis and solemn promises to respect precedent have been called before the committee before and generally have little bearing, unfortunately, as to whether the nominee will abide by those principles on the bench.

Only a few months ago, Judge Gorsuch reminded us of that with his ruling in the Janus case, as Justice Roberts reminded us with his ruling in Citizens United. Justices will overturn decades of well-worn precedent if given the opportunity. The debate this week about the future of the Supreme Court may get wonky and technical, but what is at stake is not abstract. It is real; it is concrete for Americans whose lives, health, happiness, and freedoms are on the line at the Supreme Court. Closely divided decisions recently have meant that the difference between the ability to marry the person you love or not, to have your right to vote protected or not, to make personal choices about your healthcare or not are all at stake. Stakes in this nomination today could not be higher.

The need for openness and lack of secrecy is as high as it has ever been. The responsibility of the Judiciary Committee this week is to drill down and examine Judge Kavanaugh's views to the extent that he will share them and to point out those areas in which he fails to be forthcoming. The American people have a right to know who may become the deciding vote on issues ranging from women's reproductive rights, to civil rights, to labor rights, to voting rights, to LGBTQ rights, and more. I believe the Judiciary Committee's proceedings this week will reveal to the American people a nominee unfit for the job of Associate Justice.

Mr. President, there is one more issue--that of President Trump's unconscionable statement of politicizing the Justice Department. Yesterday, the President made the following statement:

Two long-running, Obama era investigations of two very

popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well-

publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff

Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt

because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff. . . .

That is the President speaking. Yes, I think he spoke. He didn't tweet.

For so long, President Trump's actions have suggested that he views the Justice Department not as an independent law enforcement agency but as a tool to prosecute his enemies and protect himself and his friends. President Trump's statement yesterday comes right out and says it. Trump is chastising the Attorney General of the United States for enforcing the law--for announcing two indictments, backed up by ample evidence, because it may hurt members of his political party from winning elections. How outrageous is that?

So I say to President Trump: America is not some fiefdom in which the lord of the manor gets to decide who the law applies to and who it doesn't apply to. The beauty and the greatness of American democracy is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law--Republicans, Democrats, and, yes, even Presidents.

President Trump, you do not seem to understand or choose not to understand the basic principles of the rule of law that have governed our great Nation since its founding.

President Trump seems to think he is above the law, so it is no wonder he selected Judge Kavanaugh--who believes sitting Presidents should not be investigated--to sit on a potential jury on the Mueller probe.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. I might note that I am very proud of the job the Senator from Rhode Island and all of his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee did this morning.

I yield the floor

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as the Senate continues to mourn the loss of our friend and fellow Senator John McCain, let us dwell on how best to remember this great man; his friendship, his service, his integrity, his career in the Senate.

One of the ways to carry on his memory is for us to try to live up to the expectations he had for the Senate, expectations he shared with us even in his waning days: to act with more humility, to ignore the critics, to put aside our differences when necessary, and learn to trust each other more.

In Senator McCain's memory, we can try to live by those principles and make this Senate a place where, despite the noisy din of politics, progress can still be made.

That is a sentiment I hope will long outlast the memorials, the tributes, and the observances this week.

I also propose that we recognize Senator McCain's legacy by renaming the Russell Senate Office Building in his honor. For three decades, Senator McCain was a fixture in those marble halls, an institution of the Senate. It is only fitting that his name should adorn a physical institution of the Senate, particularly one that housed the Armed Services Committee. What better way to encourage future Senators, their staffs, reporters, and average Americans to study his noble but imperfect example.

Today I will be circulating a letter with Senator Flake, asking all of our colleagues if they will be willing to join us in a resolution to officially rename the Russell Building the McCain Building. I hope that many, if not most or all, will join because Senator McCain was a dear friend to all of us and a great American, a great Senator, a great man. Let his name be an example to future generations, as his service and character were to every one of us.

Madam President, on another matter, next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on President Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For Senators both on and off the committee to do their constitutional duty, to advise and consent on his nomination, they must have time to review the nominee's record.

Unfortunately, Chairman Grassley has so far frustrated our effort to get full access to the judge's records.

First, he requested only 10 to 15 percent of Kavanaugh's White House record, unilaterally declaring the bulk of his time in the White House irrelevant.

As the National Archives works through that request, the Judiciary Committee has been accepting documents from a lawyer hired by the Bush Library to prescreen documents. That lawyer, Mr. Burck, who counts Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, and White House Counsel Don McGahn among his clients, has provided only 6 percent--6 percent--of Kavanaugh's White House record to the Judiciary Committee, recently declaring some documents personal rather than Presidential records, a determination we have been given no basis for.

Judiciary Republicans went even further in their efforts to conceal Judge Kavanaugh's record by labeling another small portion of those documents committee confidential. So of the 6 percent, close to one- third cannot be seen by anyone but members of the Judiciary Committee, and they can't talk about it to others. That is 4 percent of Kavanaugh's record being made public, and there are no guidelines, no rules, as to which 4 percent is being made public and which 96 percent is being withheld. Obviously, one might think the lawyer, who is clearly totally hooked into the Republican appointment of Kavanaugh mechanism, would not allow things that might be controversial, that might put Kavanaugh in not such a good light. Yet there is not even a standard as to which documents are made public and which are kept confidential.

Does that sound fair to the Senate? Does that sound fair to the American people who have a right to read and understand who this potential future Supreme Court Justice may be?

The burden of proof should not be on disclosure of documents. We believe in disclosure. We are an open place. Senator Grassley has made disclosure of things throughout the executive branch a hallmark of his career. Yet now they make the burden of proof on those who want to disclose, and the presumption is documents will not be disclosed. It is so wrong.

Any fairminded observer would be hard pressed to say that the review of Judge Kavanaugh's record has been transparent, open, and fair. It has not been.

The Supreme Court Justice, the next one, will have immense influence over the lives of Americans for generations on issues ranging from women's reproductive rights to healthcare, protections for preexisting conditions, civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights, LGBTQ rights, and so much more. The next Supreme Court Justice may very well make crucial decisions about the limits of Executive power and accountability, something that hangs in the balance right now with all of President Trump's actions.

We know already that Judge Kavanaugh has some deeply troubling views on these issues, both because of his writings and because he was selected by a President who explicitly promised to pick pro-life judges and judges hostile to our Nation's healthcare law.

So, in order to get a complete picture of Judge Kavanaugh's views on these crucial issues, his record should be made public. There may be some highly relevant information on issues like Roe v. Wade, campaign finance, affirmative action, and more, contained within the documents Chairman Grassley has labeled ``committee confidential.''

Again, there is very relevant and significant information, even in the committee confidential documents, about Roe, campaign finance, affirmative action, and more. They should be made public, and Senator Grassley can do it with a flick of his pen. I would appeal to him as a man, again, who has stood for disclosure and openness, who has probed and gotten angry at executive branch members of both parties for withholding information. Now, of course, we have this 180-degree turn. It is not like the best of Chairman Grassley, and I hope he will change his mind.

Certainly, there is an offer to allow Senators to view these documents, but they ought to be released to the public. We don't have secret proceedings when we choose a Supreme Court Justice. It is not the Senate going into the Old Chamber and debating among themselves. These documents should be made public. The Senate should not be in the practice of shrouding the eyes of the public from the crucial business of learning what a Supreme Court nominee will be like.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on Saturday, August 25, 2018, 9 years to the day since the death of his friend Senator Kennedy, our friend and colleague Senator John S. McCain passed away. Knowing his prognosis prepared us for the inevitable, but it has not softened the blow. We all feel a great and inexpressible loss. I know I do. I also feel lucky that I was able to call this great man a friend.

Today, I wish to share a few reflections, unorganized and incomplete though they may be. I suspect I will have more to say about Senator McCain with the benefit of a few days' time.

Senator McCain and I didn't get along very well at first. He was close to my mentor in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, but not so with me. I never served with Senator McCain on any committee, where we get to know other Senators up close.

Before our friendship, my closest brush with him was over a comment he made during a debate on defense policy when he said that Long Island was ``regrettably part of the United States.'' I blasted John's pejorative, which, of course, prompted him to reply from the Senate floor:

I'm sorry there's at least one of my colleagues that can't

take a joke. I apologize if I offended him and hope that

someday he will have a sense of humor.

Like many, I was a victim of Senator McCain's acerbic wit.

Things began to defrost when we worked together during the Gang of 14 to avoid a change in the Senate rules during the Bush administration, and a real tight and lasting friendship emerged from our collaboration on immigration reform.

We worked in close quarters for nearly a year--hour after hour, day after day, week after week--fine-tuning the only piece of major immigration reform to pass this Chamber in decades. We visited the southern border together to assess the gaps in our security up close. We were doing what the Senate was supposed to do--grappling with the biggest challenges, working in a bipartisan way to find solutions, overcoming obstacles that have so long bedeviled immigration reform and continue to stymie progress today. We couldn't have done it without John McCain.

In recent days, many have reflected on his Presidential campaigns and his military service, and rightly so. He was also a natural legislator, able to seek common ground and having a sense of where to go. He knew when to give a little, and he knew when not to. He had deep principles, but he also knew how to craft a product that could actually pass, and the bill did, in the Senate, with large numbers of supporters from both parties. Had we passed immigration reform then, had the House done what the Senate did under John's leadership, we wouldn't be quarreling about immigration now, and our country would be a better, stronger, and more unified place.

We became so close over that year that John McCain started treating my staff like they were his own, and me the same. We spoke so frequently that I knew John McCain's cell number by heart, and I mistakenly repeated it during an interview when a reporter asked me how close we were. They had to edit it out to protect John's privacy.

I can truly say that the times we spent authorizing and passing immigration reform were some of the proudest days in politics for me and the rest of the Gang of 8, in no small part because the success was shared with one great legislative leader, John McCain. He was so many things to so many people, a fierce friend to those who were lucky enough to have earned his friendship--you had to earn his friendship-- and a real thorn in the side of those who earned his scorn. Many know that.

He was an unofficial ambassador for the United States, a comfort to our allies, and an unabashed champion for Western values. He was unafraid to take on Presidents. He was unafraid to take on his own party. He was equally parts funny and furious, foulmouthed and statesmanlike. He could put the ``temper'' in temperament. He was a brave and honest man. He was a patriot. He was all those things throughout his life, usually more than one at once, until his very last days.

Remarking on the character of America, Senator McCain said we live in a ``big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, brave, good and magnificent country.'' Truer words could not be said about the man himself--big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, brave, good, and magnificent.

As you go through life, you meet a few truly great people. John McCain was one of them. His dedication to his country and to the men and women who serve and protect it was unsurpassed. Even in his last weeks, he was calling me every few days to make sure our Defense authorization bill was done and done right--not for him, not for his glory but because he cared about men and women who serve in our Armed Forces so deeply. His life is a story of American heroism personified, but maybe, most of all, he was a truth teller.

Perhaps it is a reflection of our politics that a man can be so well regarded for simply telling the truth as he saw it, or, maybe, recognizing the demands and failings of our politics, it is more of a reflection on the man that four decades of public life could not warp or dim his fidelity to the unvarnished truth.

I will miss him dearly. In the past year of his illness, during moments of doubt about the direction of our country, I found myself thinking about what John McCain would do or what he would say if he were here.

Truth be told, there is nothing I could say that could possibly add or detract from Senator McCain's illustrious career. There is nothing any of us have done that compares to the sacrifice he made in a cellblock half a world away and half a lifetime ago--a sacrifice he made over and over for the country he loved and the principles he advanced.

So that generations will study his example, I have proposed we rename the Russell Senate Office Building, one of only three Senate office buildings, after John McCain. It would be a fitting tribute to a man who considered his service in the Senate--headquartered in the Russell Building, where his beloved Armed Services Committee also resides--the most significant in his distinguished career. The man whose name he would replace, Senator Richard Russell, a towering figure in the Senate of his day, was nonetheless an avowed opponent of civil rights and the architect of the Southern filibuster that long delayed its passage.

It is time that we recognize that as times change, so do our heroes. I will be introducing a resolution with Senator Flake to change the name of the Russell Building to the McCain Building. I hope my colleagues will cosponsor and support the resolution. It need not be the only way we honor Senator McCain. We can honor him by trying to carry out the principles he lived by. We can try, as he did, to put country before party. We can try, as he always did, to speak truth to power. We can try, as he summoned us to try, to restore the Senate to its rightful place in our national political life.

Up until the very end, John McCain still believed the Senate was capable of solving our country's greatest challenges. He believed that our arcane rules and procedures, designed to frustrate one-party rule, were an antidote to the organization of our politics. At the very least, he believed in the Senate's ability to make progress, to set

aside, for a moment, our party affiliations, political interests, and personal ambitions in the service of a larger cause, because that is what he did. For all his cynicism, he still believed the Senate could reach that higher calling.

Deep in the middle of his final speech on the Senate floor were these words: ``I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other, learn how to trust each other again, and by doing so, better serve the people who elected us.''

If we are to truly honor the life and the service of John McCain, let us do that. Let us do that.

John McCain put out a few final words. Today I think some of his staffers put them out. I would like to read just two paragraphs of that and then ask unanimous consent that they be put in the Record:

I have often observed that I am the luckiest person on

earth. I feel that way even now as I prepare for the end of

my life. I have loved my life, all of it. I have had

experiences, adventures and friendships enough for ten

satisfying lives, and I am so thankful. Like most people, I

have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good

times or bad times, for the best of anyone else's.

Finally, he concluded with this:

Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe

always in the promise and greatness of America, because

nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never

surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.

Farewell, fellow Americans. God bless you, and God bless

America.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, by any account, this has been a momentous week in the history of the Trump Presidency and the history of Presidencies in general. President Trump's former campaign manager was convicted on eight counts and still has another trial to go. The President's former personal attorney--his lifelong compadre for so long--pled guilty to multiple violations of bank fraud and campaign finance violations, implicating the President of the United States himself in one of those crimes. Let me repeat that. President Trump was named as an unindicted coconspirator in a Federal crime.

What did we hear from our Republican friends on the Hill? Was this the moment when Republican leaders finally stood up and said ``enough''? Amazingly, apparently not. Apparently, my Republican colleagues cannot rouse themselves to offer even a word of criticism for a President now implicated in a Federal crime; a President who casually tosses around the idea of pardoning his convicted former campaign chairman; a President who speaks favorably about that convicted felon because he didn't break, while disparaging a former confidant for collaborating with law enforcement. It sounds like a scene out of the ``Godfather.''

Imagine if President Obama's campaign manager was convicted of several serious Federal crimes. Do you think my Republican friends would give circumspect quotes to reporters, or do you think they would be beside me on the floor beside themselves? The answer is obvious. Yet, when it comes to a President of their own party, there is hardly a word of criticism or censure from our Republican friends.

At some point, after the ``Access Hollywood'' tape, after Charlottesville, after the Helsinki summit, and now after these most recent revelations, the broad failure of the Republican Party in Congress to condemn the President's behavior and what that behavior is doing to the American character becomes a form of complicity.

Without strong voices in his party to tell him when he goes too far, the Republicans have become complicit in bringing down the character of the United States, which is probably the best thing we have going for us. The President keeps destroying, hurting, and gnawing at that character with amazing narcissism, with total ego, with bullying, and with misstatements of truth after truth. Our Republican friends--the only ones who can really stop him; we can't--just shrug their shoulders. President Trump thinks he can keep testing the boundaries, and our Republican friends say: Go right ahead. We are not going to stop you. We are going to be quiet. We are going to be silent.

It seems that Republican Party leaders have made the ultimate Faustian bargain: forgoing their duty to the Constitution and the country in exchange for a corporate tax cut and stacking the courts. They are willing to ignore the corruption and lawbreaking so long as they have someone in the White House to sign their tax cuts, to gut healthcare, which they despise, and to nominate conservative ideologues to the bench.

The mantra of the Republican majority in the 115th Congress is ``put your head in the sand.'' The symbol of the Republican Party--the elephant--is being replaced with the ostrich, the bird that puts its head in the sand when trouble occurs. They must tell themselves: Put your head in the sand; we want to pass a corporate tax cut. Put your head in the sand; we want to eviscerate Obama's healthcare law, even if it means raising costs on working Americans. Put your head in the sand like an ostrich; we want a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. If you ask me, the price of that Faustian bargain has already become too steep.

I have real admiration for the ``Never Trumpers,'' hard-right conservatives who hardly agree with me on anything, but they have had the courage to say that the character of America, which Donald Trump day by day is destroying, is more important than a tax cut or a nominee to the Supreme Court because if our character goes away, we won't have much left.

We all know what Donald Trump did. When I saw the majority leader in the House talk on FOX News, I said to myself, he must believe that Trump did what it is alleged he did--paid dollars to someone to avoid her telling what happened between her and him. Everyone knows that is true. No one doubts it is true. The President knows it is true, I am sure. Yet, the Republican ostrich puts his head in the sand and ignores the day-by-day erosion of the American character that Donald Trump creates.

The Faustian bargain has become too steep, my Republican friends. Consideration of country and Constitution aside, if my Republican colleagues remain silent, the party will become coconspirator in the culture of corruption that surrounds this President.

Now is the time for the Republican leaders to do what is best for their party and for their country. Sometimes it is as simple as saying ``enough'' to this President. It would be far better, in addition to our Republican colleagues speaking out, to pass legislation to protect the special counsel from political interference, to hold hearings on the power of the President to pardon, to pass legislation to bolster election security and to hold Russia accountable, and to use Congress's power to investigate the serious crimes that were committed by the President's close associates during the election. But it has to start with our Republican colleagues recognizing the moment we are in and looking back at figures like Howard Baker, who rose to the occasion in a similar situation 45 years ago. Where are the Howard Bakers? Where are our Republican colleagues who--I know they love this country, but it is either fear or expediency or something else not admirable that is making them complicit with the President in their ostrich-like silence.

It is time, my Republican friends, to quote the Scriptures, to speak truth to power.

Madam President, the recent legal developments for Mr. Manafort and Mr. Cohen shed an entirely different light on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. It is conceivable that down the road the Supreme Court could be faced with a decision as to whether a sitting President can be subpoenaed or indicted--something the Court has not yet ruled on.

In my meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, he not only refused to answer crucial questions about whether Roe, Casey, or cases involving the ACA were correctly decided, he even refused to affirm that a President must comply with a duly issued subpoena, even in a criminal investigation that concerns vital national security.

Considering that Judge Kavanaugh has such a voluminous record on the issue of Executive authority, on which he seems to take an almost monarchical view, his refusal to say a President must comply with a subpoena should give everyone--everyone--great pause. Just as the President is implicated in criminal activity, the Senate is considering the nomination of someone to the Supreme Court who believes that sitting Presidents are virtually immune from legal jeopardy.

I understand that my Republican colleagues don't want to delay hearings for Judge Kavanaugh despite this overwhelmingly good reason to do so, made even more piquant by yesterday's events with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Manafort. I still believe that Chairman Grassley and Leader McConnell should consider--given the President's legal trouble, given the fact that the majority of the Senate has not yet had a chance to review or even access Judge Kavanaugh's full records and what he might feel about Executive power, I feel that we should hit pause on the hearing. It makes logical sense.

Senators should be wary of the unknowns in Judge Kavanaugh's hidden record. He has been a hard-right Republican warrior for much of his career before he got on the bench. When he got on the bench, he was still a hard-right warrior in the decisions he made. President Trump didn't vet him any better than he vetted Scott Pruitt, Tom Price, or any of the other catastrophic appointments he made to the Cabinet. It will be a rude awakening for Senators to find out after a confirmation vote that the nominee had a number of issues in his past that the Senate did not properly consider.

I repeat my plea. We should delay Judge Kavanaugh's hearing at the very minimum until the full record of everything he has said and done on Executive authority is made public.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday I met with President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Our conversation covered many different topics. Unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh refused to answer even the most basic questions about his jurisprudence.

He refused to say if he believed Roe was correctly decided. He refused to say if he believed Casey was correctly decided. He could not name for me a restriction on a woman's right to choose that he would consider an undue burden. Even when I asked him if a ban on abortion after only 4 to 6 weeks would be an undue burden, he said he couldn't answer that.

He could not tell me if he believed the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. Nor would he answer or recall his level of involvement in a number of controversies during his time in the Bush White House, a portion of his record the Senate has been denied access to by the Republican majority.

Now, I understand the imperative all judges face not to bias themselves by commenting on cases that could come before their court, but these are some basic questions of already decided cases. Furthermore, I told Judge Kavanaugh that he is in a different place than others.

President Trump has said that he will only appoint nominees who will undo Roe v. Wade. President Trump has said he will only appoint nominees who will declare the ACA unconstitutional. Judge Kavanaugh is under a burden to refute that.

I asked him if, even when he sat with the President, did he tell the President not to count on him, that he will not absolutely vote to repeal Roe. He didn't.

So Kavanaugh has a burden beyond that of a normal Justice because of what President Trump, the person who selected him, has said unequivocally.

So here is Justice Kavanaugh's silence or refusal to commit to even the most common things that should be said. He said he would say Brown was correctly decided. Why can't he say Roe was correctly decided? There is his silence, especially given his recent praises of dissent in Roe and Casey. In 2016 and 2017 he praised Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia's views that Casey and Roe were decided wrongly. What is anyone supposed to reasonably believe?

Given that President Trump said that he will only choose people who will repeal Roe and declare ACA unconstitutional, given that he has praised the dissents in Roe and Casey, the fact that he was unwilling to refute any of that in any way or to even say that a limit on abortion after 4 weeks was an undue burden should raise real questions for any American who believes in choice and who believes in the constitutionality of government helping with healthcare, including preexisting conditions.

Then, there is one issue we discussed yesterday that took on a whole new light mere minutes after our discussion concluded. I asked Judge Kavanaugh about his remarkably expansive views on executive authority. As context, Judge Kavanaugh has said that Presidents should not be subject to criminal or civil investigations while in office. He said the only remedy for a President who committed a serious crime is impeachment by Congress.

So I asked Judge Kavanaugh a more basic question: Does he believe that a sitting President must comply with a subpoena or testify or provide records? He would not say that the President must comply with a subpoena.

I asked him that in the most extreme situation: In a criminal investigation

against a sitting President, where our national security is at stake, could the investigator subpoena the President? He wouldn't say he would.

Now, that was before the news that broke late yesterday. During our meeting, actually, the news broke that President Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, implicated the President in a violation of campaign finance laws.

The sequence of those two events--Kavanaugh's refusal to say that a President must comply with a duly issued subpoena and Michael Cohen's implication of the President in a Federal crime--makes the danger of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court abundantly clear. It is a game changer. It should be.

The President, identified as an unindicted coconspirator of a Federal crime--an accusation made not by a political enemy but by the closest of his own confidants--is on the verge of making a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, a court that may someday soon determine the extent of the President's legal jeopardy.

In my view, the Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately pause the consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination.

The majority of the Senate has still not seen the bulk of Judge Kavanaugh's record. At the very least--the very least--it is unseemly for the President of the United States to be picking a Supreme Court Justice who could soon be, effectively, a juror in a case involving the President himself.

In light of these facts, I believe Chairman Grassley has scheduled a hearing for Judge Kavanaugh too soon, and I am calling on him to delay the hearing.

I know that Chairman Grassley and Leader McConnell hold all the cards in terms of scheduling hearings, but the plain facts of the case should compel them to the same conclusion I have reached--that the Judiciary Committee should postpone Judge Kavanaugh's hearings.

At this moment in our Nation's history, the Senate should not confirm a man to the bench who believes that Presidents are virtually beyond accountability, even in criminal cases, and a man who believes that Presidents are virtually above the law and that only Congress can check a President's power.

Over the past year, despite numerous abuses of Presidential authority, despite numerous encroachments on the separation of powers, despite numerous attacks on the rule of law, this Republican Congress has done almost nothing--nothing--to check this President. If Congress can be captured by one party's deference to the President, we cannot allow the Supreme Court to be captured as well.

The doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's fitness for the bench were just magnified by Mr. Cohen's plea agreement. The prospect of the President being implicated in some criminal case is no longer a hypothetical that can be dismissed. It is very real.

If Judge Kavanaugh truly believes that no sitting President, including President Trump, must answer for crimes he may or may not have committed, then he should not become Justice Kavanaugh with the power to make those views manifest in our books of law.

More broadly, yesterday's news has blackened an already dark cloud hanging over this administration. In addition to Mr. Cohen's implication of the President, Paul Manafort was convicted of violating Federal law on eight different counts in this trail, his first of two trials.

To take a step back, President Trump's campaign manager was convicted of Federal crimes. President Trump's personal attorney pled guilty to Federal crimes. President Trump's first National Security Advisor pled guilty to Federal crimes. A foreign policy advisor to his campaign pled guilty to Federal crimes, and more trials are coming.

Cabinet officials have been forced to resign for flagrant graft and profligacy funded by the American taxpayer. That is to say nothing of the fact that the first two congressional endorsements of President Trump's campaign came from two Congressmen who have recently been indicted on counts of insider trading and campaign finance violations-- what a swamp, what a swamp. It is far worse than the swamp that existed when President Trump took over. He has not cleaned the swamp. He has made it more retched and more fetid.

No one in America can dismiss what has happened as the actions of a few bad apples. There is a cesspool around this President. There is now an unmistakable sinister hypocrisy to President Trump's campaign slogan: Drain the swamp. President Trump brought the worst swamp we have seen in Washington's history to town when he came here.

Yesterday's news leads me to make two points. First, Special Counsel Mueller's investigation is clearly doing what it was constituted to do and finding criminal activity in the process. Already there have been four guilty pleas or verdicts and dozens of indictments. The idea of calling Special Counsel Mueller's investigation a witch hunt was already absurd and laughable, and it becomes even more so today.

Second, the President should not even consider pardoning Mr. Manafort or Mr. Cohen at any point in the future. To do so would be the most flagrant abuse of pardon power and a clear obstruction of justice.

The Rosenstein-Mueller investigation must be permitted to conclude its work, and the President must resist the impulse to interfere with pardons, dismissals, or any other action that prevents the work of the Justice Department from going forward.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court will be making the rounds in the Senate. I will be meeting with him this afternoon. Several members of the Judiciary Committee will be meeting with him over the course of today and the rest of the week, as will some other Members.

I hope he comes prepared to answer direct questions about his writings,

speeches, opinions, and judicial philosophy. The nominee has weighed in on a number of legal issues publicly and in his role as a circuit judge. There is little reason why he should be unable to answer direct questions about his judicial philosophy, his record, and already decided cases.

I also hope that he is willing to shed some light in the areas in his record that remain opaque. The Senate and the public have been able to see only a tiny fraction of the nominee's extensive written record because, unfortunately, the Republican majority continues to block access to the great bulk of these documents. I will ask our Republicans: What are they hiding?

We did make a little progress last night after the Parliamentarian ruled that the rules of the Senate allow every Senator to see the committee documents. Chairman Grassley graciously agreed that any committee member could see them without muss or fuss. So we very much appreciate that.

The next Supreme Court Justice, whether it is Judge Kavanaugh or not, will have immense influence over the lives of every American for generations to come. Most Americans think this is sort of an abstract or political argument. It is not.

The actual rulings of Kavanaugh will affect just about everyone's life in America in very significant and material ways. The next Supreme Court Justice may someday determine whether the President must comply with a duly issued subpoena. The next Supreme Court Justice may someday soon determine whether Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to afford healthcare. The next justice someday soon may determine just how much States can restrict a woman's constitutionally guaranteed right to make her own medical decisions, to say nothing about labor rights, civil rights, voting rights, environmental protections, and more.

All of these things, part of the wellspring of America, are affected by the Supreme Court's rulings. As we know, Judge Kavanaugh will be a crucial vote on just about every one of those issues with the 4-to-4 division on the court today.

Judge Kavanaugh, in his meetings with Senators today and the days ahead, has a responsibility--a responsibility--not to duck, not to hide behind false legal shibboleths or say: Oh, I just can't discuss this; a case might come before me. He has a responsibility to inform the Senate as to his beliefs and philosophy so that the Senate can conduct its constitutional duty to advise and consent.

Healthcare

Madam President, on another matter, it seems that every day we read about a new danger to our healthcare system caused by President Trump and his party in Congress. Only a few days ago, it was announced that the court case that concerns the constitutionality of protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, Texas v. United States, will begin on September 5.

Remember, President Trump's Justice Department has refused to defend protections for preexisting conditions in court. What an abomination. Just about every American has someone in their family--many in their immediate family--who has an illness. Someone might have diabetes. Someone might have asthma and, God forbid, something worse. Those are preexisting conditions. That family will not be able to get health insurance. That family risks that their present insurance will expire and they will not get anything new.

This administration is trying to take away that protection so important to so many Americans. That is what is happening, so Senators Manchin and Casey have introduced a resolution asking the Senate legal counsel to step in to defend the law since the administration will not. I hope we get a vote on that resolution soon. I don't see how anyone couldn't be for it.

Sadly, the Justice Department's decision to abandon protections for preexisting conditions is far from the only example of President Trump's repeated sabotage of our healthcare system. Over and over again, he has tried to undo the healthcare Americans have without even understanding what he is really doing.

On day one, President Trump issued an Executive order aimed at the healthcare law. It was the very first thing he did. He then proposed legislation with congressional Republicans to repeal the healthcare law, devastate Medicaid, and eliminate protections for tens of millions of people with preexisting conditions. That failed, but congressional Republicans managed to repeal the coverage requirement in their tax bill, of all places, and put nothing in its place, causing unnecessary premium increases across the country.

Americans know, as their premium increases gallop upward, that it is Republicans in the Senate and President Trump in the White House who have caused this to happen. Now he continues to do that. He has expanded the availability of junk insurance plans that bait Americans in with lowest rates while providing only the flimsiest of coverage.

Again, if these junk insurance plans become the law, the rule, the mode, so many people will lose their ability to protect themselves when they have preexisting conditions.

These actions by President Trump, aided, abetted, and encouraged by congressional Republicans who either agreed with him or failed to challenge him meaningfully, have had devastating results for so many Americans.

Premiums have risen by double digits in a bunch of States, the direct result of Republican sabotage. And the insurers themselves--they are the ones who have raised the rates, but they say: Hey, it is Republicans in the House, Senate, and the White House who are causing it. Those insurance industries don't tend to favor Democrats, but they have to protect themselves and their clients.

Prescription drug costs continue to rise. After promising tough action on prescription drugs, the President and congressional Republicans have hardly lifted a finger. The United States is now last--dead last--among industrialized nations in maternal mortality. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world with rising maternal mortality rates. Despite all of our advances in genetics, nutrition, and surgery, the United States is getting worse at caring for mothers. We should hang our heads in shame about that. We should do something about it.

Come on, Republican colleagues. Your voters are no different from our voters and independent voters. They care about good healthcare at an affordable cost. Please, do something about it. Join us.

But instead of grappling with these problems and proposing solutions, President Trump and congressional Republicans just launch attack after attack after attack on our healthcare system, particularly women's health. That worked in the 2016 campaign because they said that they had a plan to replace it with something better. No plan--no plan emerged. And it is not working for them now. It is just not working for them.

The American people overwhelmingly prefer Democrats to Republicans on healthcare, and healthcare is the No. 1 issue in State after State after State. So for their own political benefit, Republicans in the Senate and in the House ought to wake up--wake up--because the old playbook that may have worked in 2014 and 2016 when you weren't in charge--it was a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate for part of that time--ain't no more. You are in charge, and you put nothing in its place--nothing. There is just negativity.

In poll after poll after poll, the American people say that healthcare is the No. 1 issue. They don't want to go back to a time before we offered protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. They don't want to go back to a time when insurance companies charged women and seniors and older Americans more for the same exact coverage. They don't want to go back to a time when insurance companies could deny maternity care, mental health treatment, prescription drug coverage, and more, but that is where President Trump and our Republican colleagues want to take us. I say to all those blue- collar folks who voted for President Trump: He promised you better healthcare. Is he delivering it? Go look at your bills. Go look at healthcare. If he is not, maybe you will help bring some change to Washington--real change--so that your

healthcare costs will be lower and your healthcare will improve.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.