Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we will vote today on the confirmation of Ryan Bounds to the Ninth Circuit. He has been nominated to fill the vacancy left by Judge O'Scannlain. Mr. Bounds once served as a law clerk to Ninth Circuit Judge O'Scannlain.

Mr. Bounds is highly qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. A native of Oregon, he attended Stanford University and Yale Law School. He has dedicated his career to public service and has served in government for the past 14 years. The last 8 years were as an assistant U.S. attorney in Oregon.

I have listened to my colleagues on the other side voice their opposition to Mr. Bounds. Interestingly, none of them cite anything Mr. Bounds has done in his legal career as a reason for opposing his nomination. Instead, they focus on two things. First, they say we shouldn't confirm Mr. Bounds because his home State Senators didn't return their blue slips. Second, they say some of Mr. Bounds' college writings were insensitive. So I am going to start with point No. 1 on which they base their opposition to him.

As I have explained so many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate and in the Senate Judiciary Committee--and I don't know how many times to the multitudes of journalists who are on the Hill--my blue-slip policy is the same as all but 2 of my 18 predecessors who were chairmen of the Judiciary Committee over the 100-year history of blue slips. Like Chairmen Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Orrin Hatch, I will hold hearings for circuit court nominees who have negative or unreported blue slips if the White House has consulted with the home State Senators, and I will not allow Senators to abuse the blue-slip courtesy for political or ideological reasons.

In the case of Mr. Bounds, the White House sought the Oregon Senators' input, seriously considered the one candidate suggested by the Oregon Senators, and waited several months for the Senators from Oregon to establish their judicial selection committee, which is quite a tradition in that State. The selection committee itself even recommended Mr. Bounds. Yet the Oregon Senators still didn't return their blue slips.

They say it was because Mr. Bounds didn't disclose some of his college writings to the selection committee. There is a very good reason he didn't--the selection committee never asked for his college writings. In fact, Senator Wyden's staff instructed Mr. Bounds not to disclose them. Moreover, the Oregon Senators refused to ever meet with Mr. Bounds during this whole process.

It has been misleadingly said this will be the first time in modern history we will have confirmed a judge without there having been at least one positive blue slip from the two State Senators. My Democratic colleagues have only themselves to blame. The way the blue slip used to be enforced was through the 60-vote filibuster, and that was done away with in November 2013, led by the then-Democratic majority and Senator Reid.

For example, Chairman Hatch held hearings for five nominees in 2003 and 2004, despite there being the lack of a positive blue slip from either home State Senator. These nominees were voted out of committee. Then Senate Democrats blocked these nominees on the floor by using the 60-vote filibuster. But my Democratic colleagues abolished that filibuster, as I said, in 2013 for the reason that they needed the votes and the freedom to pack the DC Circuit with liberal judges who would uphold Obama's regulatory schemes.

Leading this effort was none other than Senator Merkley of Oregon, who argued that 41 Senators shouldn't be able to block a Senate majority from confirming judges. Now they have a different point of view. Now he argues that he alone should have the right to block Mr. Bounds from even getting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

In November of 2013, I told my Democratic colleagues that they would regret abolishing the filibuster just to stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with their friends. Now, obviously, today, as they consider the Bounds nomination, they know they made a mistake.

Turning to the only other criticism my colleagues have made about Mr. Bounds, which is in regard to his college writings, I don't believe that misguided statements made in a college newspaper 25 years ago should disqualify Mr. Bounds. I hope we don't live in a world where controversial things that we write in college end our careers forever. This is especially true with our kids and grandkids now in the era of social media.

For example, a few years ago, just when the same thing came up on Justice Wright going to the Minnesota

District Court, I voted and supported her despite very controversial writings she had in law school. We shouldn't assume that views expressed years ago during college and law school represent the nominee today.

Mr. Bounds testified that he regretted much of what he wrote in those op-eds.

We received numerous letters in support of Mr. Bounds' nomination from people who have known him personally throughout his life. We received a letter from some of his classmates at Stanford. And before I quote, it is kind of like--these sound like they were his friends in the dormitories. I never was a dormitory student, but I imagine you really get acquainted with people there. This is what they had to say about Mr. Bounds:

We have become aware of a handful of controversial op-eds

and articles Ryan wrote for The Stanford Review during that

time. None of us believes that these writings reflect Ryan's

character, either then or now. All of us remember our dorm-

mate fondly.

We are a diverse bunch. Yet Ryan never failed to treat all

of us with courtesy, respect, and civility, regardless of our

respective genders, sexual orientations, skin colors,

religions, ethnicity, or any other characteristics.

There is not, and never has been, a racist, sexist,

homophobic, or bigoted bone in Ryan Bounds's body.

Mr. Bounds has also been a community leader, promoting diversity and equality. As a member of the Multnomah Bar Association's Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, Mr. Bounds spearheaded programs to expose underprivileged young people to the legal profession. He mentored young scholarship recipients and helped those same people navigate law school admissions and law school. He expanded low-cost CLE offerings and organized anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training.

Mr. Bounds is imminently qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. His college writings do not represent who he is today. His professional accomplishments and exemplary public service speak much more loudly to his character and integrity.

I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Mr. Bounds' confirmation today.

Madam President, I would like to say one thing about another nomination issue. I understand that so far, no Senate Democrat has met with Judge Kavanaugh. They are apparently awaiting their marching orders from the minority leader. Well, the American people elected each one of those Democratic Senators to represent them, not the minority leader. And when Senate Democrats have largely already made up their minds to vote against Judge Kavanaugh and none of them have even met with him, their demand for a paper chase beyond relevant material sounds more and more like a demand for a taxpayer-funded fishing expedition.

Now, Madam President, I would like to address my colleagues in the U.S. Senate on the life and death of Governor Bob Ray, a wonderful Governor for the State of Iowa over a long period of time. I wish to honor him in this way.

I wish to pay tribute to my good friend and an exceptional Iowan whose life and legacy will be remembered in my home State for generations to come. As the people of Iowa mourn the loss of our 38th Governor, I would like to share about a few ways that Robert D. Ray made Iowa a better place to grow. Looking back at his lifetime of service, it seems nearly impossible that one person could wear so many hats and reach the highest rungs of distinguished service in both his private life and in the public sector.

After graduating from high school in 1946, Bob enlisted in the U.S. Army to serve his country that way. He returned from service and earned undergraduate and law degrees at Drake University in Des Moines, IA. He married the love of his life, Billie, and together they raised three daughters.

In addition to serving 14 years as our State's chief executive from 1969 to 1983, Governor Ray also served as our State party chairman at the age of 35, chairman of the National Governors Association, interim mayor of Des Moines, 11th president of Drake University, U.S. delegate to the United Nations Conference on Refugees, and CEO and board member to a number of nonprofit and for-profit corporations.

Reading such an outstanding resume, one might come to the conclusion that this Iowan must have an outsized ego to match. To that, I can personally affirm that Bob Ray was a humble leader driven by a servant's heart. He brought honesty, dignity, and integrity to the campaign trail and, in turn, to State government.

His policy achievements as our 38th Governor made government work better for the people by reorganizing State government, such as the creation of the department of transportation, and modernizing the National Guard. Those are just a few of the reorganizations. But through doing this, he strengthened rock-solid Iowa values in education, conservation, good government, and fiscal stewardship. It was Governor Ray who signed Iowa's--we call it the bottle bill. You get a redemption for a can you return instead of throwing it in the dump. He signed it into law to keep our roadways clean and our State looking beautiful.

Arguably, the lasting measure of his governorship is defined by moral leadership, and particularly as evidenced after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

As a result of the ending of the Vietnam war, Governor Ray's actions transcended the riverbanks of America's heartland to reach thousands of refugees across the world. Those refugees were fleeing communism in Southeast Asia. Governor Ray persuaded President Ford to allow Iowa to welcome the Tai Dam to Iowa, allowing this close-knit ethnic group to stay intact and to resettle in Iowa.

In 1978, we had another wave of Southeast Asians who were desperate to escape communism in South Vietnam. They became known as the boat people who put their lives in peril for the pearl of freedom that we offer in America. Bob Ray put his political life on the line to open Iowa's homes and hearts to rescue them from suffering and death. In so doing, he saved the lives of thousands of people, including generations of new Iowans yet to be born.

Yet again, Governor Ray responded in 1979 to another humanitarian crisis going on in Southeast Asia by launching the Iowa SHARES Program. The acronym ``SHARES'' stands for Iowa ``Sends Help to Aid Refugees and End Starvation.'' That very first year, the program raised more than $600,000 in less than 1 month--small donations to send food and medicine to starving people on the Cambodian border. Volunteer nurses and doctors from Iowa also went to save these people, who suffered under the harsh Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot.

When one of those members of the boat people first learned of Governor Ray's passing, she was moved to tears. Now a wife and mother of five children, she prayed for Governor Ray, in fact referring to him as ``Saint Bob Ray.'' She attributed his courage and generosity to saving thousands of people just like her.

At his funeral, Senator Ernst and I saw a whole part of the church filled with these Southeast Asians who very much wanted to express their appreciation for Governor Ray's leadership by being there at that funeral.

In 2005, Governor Ray received Iowa's highest civilian honor, the Iowan Award. It is a well-deserved honor for this legendary man of honor. He is a statesman, a humanitarian hero, and, of course, to those who loved him the most, he was a husband, dad, and grandpa.

Years after Governor Ray left the Governor's mansion, called Terrace Hill, he launched the Robert D. and Billie Ray Center at Drake University. That center's mission is dedicated to improving civility and developing ethical leaders at home and throughout the world. And for all of us, we know that in a society less civil now than it has been throughout most of the history of our country, that center is going to serve a very needed purpose. For those who know the story of Bob Ray, his ray of light connected with the center will inspire generations of leaders for years to come.

Barbara and I join our fellow Iowans in extending our condolences to Billie and the entire Ray family. We will miss this extraordinary Iowan. Our State benefited in countless ways because he shared his gift so generously to make Iowa an even better place to grow for generations to come.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that three eulogies that highlight Governor Ray's life as a Governor, political humanitarian, and a man with strong family values be printed in the Record.

These eulogies are from David Oman, who served as chief of staff to Governor Ray; Ken Quinn, a former U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia who worked on the refugee resettlement as a member of the Ray administration and today serves as president of the World Food Prize Foundation in Des Moines; and the third is from Scott Raecker, who serves as director of the Robert D. and Billie Ray Center at Drake University. I hope my colleagues will read these eulogies because there is no way that anything I say today can do justice to what they said in their separate eulogies.

Madam President, I wish to recognize a friend, an agricultural innovator, an inventor with I think about 80 patents. His name is Eugene Sukup.

If you travel around the Midwest, you will see there are grain operations on a lot of family farms. If you go to Haiti, as a result of the catastrophe down there a few years ago, you will see how smaller buildings that we would call grain storage facilities in Iowa serve as homes for homeless people. That resulted from that catastrophe.

Eugene Sukup is a quintessential bootstrap American success story. After settling in Iowa during the Dust Bowl and serving his Nation as a sergeant in the National Guard, Eugene made his living as a farmer, earning the title of ``Franklin County Outstanding Farmer'' in his younger years, in 1962.

While working on his farm, like a lot of farmers, he tried to think of easier ways to do things. He observed that pockets of grain-- particularly corn--housed in storage bins could overheat and, as a result, spoil. Understanding the depth and breadth of the problem for farmers across the country, he was determined to find a solution, and he did. Through trial and error, along with gritty determination and ingenuity, Eugene came up with something he entitled the ``Stirway Stirring Machine.'' The innovative technology automated the process of stirring stored grain and corn and became an instant success among his fellow farmers. Eugene patented his invention and founded the Sukup Manufacturing Company in 1963.

Through my years holding annual meetings in each of Iowa's 99 counties, Sukup Manufacturing from time to time has hosted the meetings I have in Franklin County. After a tour of the factory, I always enjoyed Eugene's allowing his employees to have an open Q&A session with me so that I could hear what is on the minds of my constituents, because these constituents can't afford to leave their jobs and come to the courthouse to ask me questions. I try to go to people like them to make the process of a representative government work, and the best way to do that is face-to-face with your constituents.

Getting back to Sukup Manufacturing, by words and deeds, it is very clear that Sukup Manufacturing is a great place to work and a devoted contributor to the local community and global philanthropy. Fifty-five years later, the Sukup Manufacturing Company--which was the idea of a small family farmer--holds over 80 patents and sells its products in more than 85 countries. It remains the largest family-owned, full-line grain system manufacturer, employing more than 700 employees in the community of Sheffield, IA, and if I had to guess its population, I would say it is around 1,500.

Eugene's pioneering invention contributed to the success of tens of thousands of farming operations, allowing farmers to safely store their grain on their farms to capture the best market price. We have Sukup grain bins on my own family farm near Waterloo, IA; more specifically, the little village in New Hartford, IA. His ingenuity is a perfect example of the opportunity America's economic system gives people with ideas and drive.

Eugene's legacy spans Iowa's landscape from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River and reaches beyond the borders of our State and the borders of the United States. Sukup Manufacturing stepped up to reconfigure grain bins into housing units, as I previously said, for hurricane-ravaged Haiti. The units withstand 140-mile-per-hour winds, providing a safe habitat for residents.

In 2006, Eugene was inducted into Iowa's Inventors Hall of Fame and received the Outstanding Innovation Award by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. He was inducted into Iowa's Business Hall of Fame in 2011 and was named a Legend in Manufacturing by Elevate Advanced Manufacturing in 2015.

Through Eugene and its leaders, the Sukup family business has been a constant voice for job creation and opportunity. His contribution to manufacturing, agriculture, and the entire rural community and our economy will be an asset to farmers and the agriculture community for generations to come. It is amazing to think of what can happen in rural and small towns throughout our country thanks to the successful enterprise that Eugene Sukup represents.

Throughout our decades-long friendship, I have admired his relentless work ethic and unwavering commitment to community and family. His civil, political, and community leadership sets a very high bar for the rest of us in America.

Eugene was an American inventor, innovator, and a great friend. He will be greatly missed. May God bless him and his beloved family.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up and passed by voice vote S. 2946, the Anti- Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018.

I was proud to introduce this bipartisan bill and to lead it through the Judiciary Committee. I am proud to have Senators Nelson, Rubio, Whitehouse, Cruz, Blumenthal, Tillis, Coons, Cornyn, Hatch, and Kennedy as cosponsors.

It is not always easy to find common ground here in the Senate, but there is one issue where there is no doubt we can all agree: Those who aid or carry out terrorist attacks that kill or injure Americans should be held fully accountable.

Those who have been impacted should have a meaningful avenue to seek justice.

For over 25 years, the Anti-Terrorism Act has empowered American victims of international terrorism to bring civil lawsuits in Federal courts to vindicate their rights and obtain compensation for their injuries.

Just as important, these lawsuits disrupt and discourage the financing and material support of terrorist organizations. By cutting terrorists' financial lifelines, the ATA helps to reduce global terrorism, protecting Americans both here and abroad.

In short, the ATA puts terrorists on notice to keep their hands off Americans.

I was proud to be the lead sponsor of the ATA back in 1992, which removed the jurisdictional hurdles that, for too long, had frustrated or outright prevented American victims' ability to seek redress.

Since then, terrorists and those who financially support them have tried to blow holes in the law and stretch its exceptions beyond what Congress ever intended.

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018--and its additional improvements adopted in the Judiciary Committee last week--strengthens the ATA and reiterates Congress's original intent that terrorist groups and their supporters be brought to justice in U.S. Courts, regardless of where the attacks occurred.

It is a carefully considered and deliberately crafted response to efforts to undermine the ATA. It represents Congress's considered judgment in responding to acts of international terrorism that kill or injure Americans overseas.

The bill clarifies the ATA's so-called ``act of war'' exception. Congress never intended that designated terrorist organizations could dodge liability for attacks that kill or injure Americans by simply claiming this exception.

Some, however, have twisted the exception to get away scot-free. The ``act of war'' exception should not be a liability shield for designated terrorist organizations or their supporters.

This bill makes clear that the exception doesn't apply to those designated by the U.S. Government as foreign terrorist organizations or specially designated global terrorists.

This is common sense. As one Federal judge put it, ``To find that a terrorist organization can be a military force under the ATA would defeat the purpose of the Act, 'which was enacted to deter terrorist activity and hold liable those who engage in it.' ''

Outside of that, the bill keeps in place the current analysis that courts conduct when determining who is and is not a military force.

Second, the bill permits victims of narco-terrorism to satisfy court- awarded ATA judgments with the assets of foreign drug kingpins. Assets blocked by the Federal Government under the Kingpin Designation Act are not currently available to victims to satisfy their judgments.

This bill fixes that.

Finally, the bill responds to recent Federal court decisions that severely undermined the ability of American victims to bring terrorists to justice. The ATA was specifically designed to provide extraterritorial jurisdiction over terrorists who attack Americans overseas. Last year, I led an amicus brief, with 22 bipartisan Senators, to the Supreme Court in Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, reiterating the purpose and scope of the 1992 law.

I was stunned when the Justice Department failed to stand up in that case for American victims of terrorism.

Despite broad bipartisan support in Congress for the ATA and the victims it protects, the Justice Department, in fact, actively opposed those victims and their right to seek redress against terrorists.

Inconceivably, instead of standing up for American victims of terrorism, the administration urged the Court to not even consider the Sokolow decision.

Congress can act where the administration chose not to. Accordingly, this bill makes crystal clear that defendants who take advantage of certain benefits from the U.S. Government following 120 days after the bill's enactment--such as foreign assistance--will be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in ATA cases.

Based on further improvements in a substitute amendment adopted by unanimous consent in the Judiciary Committee, the bill also restores jurisdiction in cases pending at the time of the bill's enactment. No defendant, after all, should be able to enjoy privileges under U.S. law, while simultaneously dodging responsibility for supporting terrorists that injure or kill Americans.

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act is supported by thousands of veterans and Gold Star families

It is supported by groups like AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Christians United for Israel, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the National Council of Young Israel, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Zionist Organization of America.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me on this bill and whose staffs are working tirelessly to help us move it forward.

I also want to thank Senators Nelson and Blumenthal for their support.

Finally, I want to thank House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler for introducing and moving the companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Now that the bill has been reported to the floor, I ask for all of my Senate colleagues' support and look forward to Congress sending this bill to the President's desk very soon.

Mr. President, as I have done two or three times before in the last week, I would take some of my colleagues' time to discuss the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

I think the debate surrounding his confirmation has highlighted the deep divide between how conservatives view the role of the judiciary versus how liberals view it. The reason liberal outside groups oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is quite simple: They don't think he will promote their preferred policies and the outcomes of those policies while on the Bench.

I can't think of a better example that demonstrates how differently liberals and conservatives view the role of the judiciary, so let me tell you how I and most Americans view the role of the judiciary. There are pretty simple things we learned from high school government courses about the checks and balances of government--pretty simple, pretty common sense, because it is all about the purpose of the Constitution of the United States.

Under the Constitution, we have three branches of government. Congress makes the law, the President enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets and applies the law and the Constitution.

The judiciary's role as a coequal and independent branch of government is significant. It is confined. In the words from the Constitution, they can only deal with cases and controversies. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist Paper No. 78, the judiciary ``may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.'' In other words, the judiciary must stay in its lane--a very slow lane--calling balls and strikes as the courts see them, without trying to encroach on Congress's authority to make policy through the legislative process. When the Supreme Court goes beyond its mandate and enters the policymaking arena, it threatens the structure of our Constitution.

To preserve the judiciary's independence, Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life. They are not directly accountable to the voters for

their decisions. The American people can toss out those of us in Congress if we make bad policy decisions, but if a judge ends up legislating, we are stuck with a judge who made those bad decisions for life.

The benefit of this arrangement is that judges can make decisions according to the laws, not based on the whims of political opinion because they are immune from that political opinion. But the downside is that some judges can see their independence as a green light to override the policy choices of Congress or the States and substitute their own policy preferences. The threat this poses to self-government should be very self-evident: Instead of the people's representatives making policy choices, unelected judges who aren't answerable to the American people make them.

Conservatives believe that judges must rule according to the law as written. In any case, the law might lead to a liberal political result or, it might require a conservative political result, but the judge can't take that into consideration. The law must be interpreted regardless of whether the judge agrees with the political results of the decision. A good judge will oftentimes personally disagree with the result he or she reaches.

Many liberals view the role of the judiciary very differently. Liberals believe that an independent judiciary, unaccountable to the American people, is a very convenient way to achieve policy outcomes that can't be achieved through the democratic and representative process. That is why, in nearly every case before the Supreme Court, it is very predictable how the four Democrat-appointed Justices will rule. In most cases, they will reach the result that achieves liberal political goals. How else can you explain the fact that the Democrat- appointed Justices have voted to strike down every restriction on abortion--a right that appears nowhere in the Constitution--but would uphold restrictions on political speech or gun rights? After all, these rights are expressly covered by the First and Second Amendments.

The unfortunate reality is that liberal jurisprudence is thinly veiled liberal policymaking, and I am very generous when I say ``thinly veiled.'' This explains many of the leftwing attacks on Judge Kavanaugh that are now going on. Judge Kavanaugh has a track record of putting aside any policy preferences that he has and ruling according to the law as it is written. I think this is a virtue. Indeed, it is necessary for judges to do that--to show their impartiality, to show their judicial temperaments. But liberal outside groups and their Senate allies see this as a threat. They want judges who will impose their policy preferences--only have those policy preferences disguised as law, of course. They want politicians hiding under their judicial robes. That is why many of the attacks on Judge Kavanaugh are based on policy outcomes.

Leftwing groups are spending millions of dollars to convince the American people that Judge Kavanaugh is hostile to their preferred policies. I believe this effort will be unsuccessful. What the American people see in Judge Kavanaugh is a judge who will rule according to the law, not for or against various policies.

Nine Ivy League Justices and their cadre of mostly Ivy League law clerks aren't equipped to replace Congress's exclusive lawmaking function.

One attack I have seen on Judge Kavanaugh is that he represents a threat to the Affordable Care Act's protection of people with preexisting conditions. I want to tell you why numerically that just doesn't work out--because the same five Justices who twice upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act are still on the Court. Justice Kennedy, whom Judge Kavanaugh would replace, voted to strike down the Affordable Care Act. In other words, even assuming you could predict Judge Kavanaugh's vote 1 year or 10 years from now on the Affordable Care Act, his vote would not change the outcome. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh had two opportunities to strike down the Affordable Care Act on the DC Circuit, where he now serves. He did not do it. So where do they get the idea that he is a predictable vote to undo the

Madam President, as we all know, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a component of the Department of Justice. It is frequently described as the premier law enforcement agency in the country. The FBI's investigative authority has only grown--and grown tremendously--since its creation almost 100 years ago.

The Bureau now covers everything from kidnapping to counterintelligence, public corruption to bank robbery, and maybe a lot of things in between. Its power is very substantial, and its jurisdiction is far-reaching. It is a very important agency. Because of that, the FBI is subject to a lot of scrutiny.

Lately, we have had a lot of folks around here who seem to be mistaking the word ``scrutiny'' of the Bureau with the word ``attacks'' on the Bureau. Oversight of the FBI is not new, and it is a constitutional responsibility of the Congress at least to do oversight of every agency, and the FBI can't be an exception.

Far from being out of bounds, it is essential for the people's elected representatives in the Congress to put the FBI under a microscope. That is doubly true when the FBI gets involved in election controversies. The more power and the more secrecy the FBI claims in order to carry out its responsibilities, the more closely it ought to be watched.

Under our government, where the public's business ought to be public, that statement I just made ought to be common sense to everybody.

In its criminal work, the FBI is held accountable primarily by the court system. When the FBI secretly gathers information for intelligence purposes, the risk of impropriety skyrockets. If the information is never going to be presented in the courts, as in a criminal matter, who is going to be watching to make sure that the power to gather and use it is not being abused?

That is why we need vigorous congressional oversight and strong inspector general scrutiny. Lots of people say that the FBI should be independent. I disagree. The FBI needs to be objective and nonpartisan. It should be insulated from undue political pressure.

If you want to call that independence, then I will use that word. It cannot be independent of accountability to the people's elected leaders. Civilian control of the military has always been a key safeguard to liberty for the same reason.

Freedom is at risk if the FBI can become a domestic intelligence service with free rein to weaponize information in secret. We have seen the risks of that in the text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Their contempt for both the people of this country and, particularly, their elected leaders should disturb everyone.

Abuses of power at the FBI are why we have a term limit for the Director of the FBI. That term limit is not there to protect the FBI's independence; it is there to protect the people from the abuses that J. Edgar Hoover committed because he became too independent. He was accountable to no one. J. Edgar Hoover was feared by Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen. While the Director originally was selected by the Attorney General, in 1968, Congress made the position subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. In 1976, the Congress established a nonrenewable 10-year term limit for the Director. The Senate Judiciary Committee published a committee report on that bill that limited the 10-year term in 1974. It took a couple of years for the bill to pass the House.

In quoting from that report:

The purpose of the bill is to achieve two complementary

objectives. The first is to insulate the Director of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation from undue pressure being

exerted upon him from superiors in the Executive Branch. The

second is to protect against an FBI Director becoming too

independent and unresponsive.

At the time, Congress was grappling with the fallout of Watergate and the decades of corruption and civil liberties abuses by that first Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover--hence, the legislation. Congress knew the FBI had to be able to operate free of partisan interference but still be accountable to the duly elected leadership of the country, including all Members of Congress in their constitutional roles of oversight.

Certainly, the FBI Director can't be a politician's stooge, but history tells us that the bigger risk is in the other direction. Hoover abused his power to intimidate politicians and other political leaders. In a democracy, all of our leaders are ultimately accountable to the people. Access to information about what agencies like the FBI are doing is essential to holding them accountable. Transparency brings accountability. Abuses multiply in secret. That is why congressional oversight--Congress's responsibility under the Constitution--is key. The recent report by the Department of Justice's inspector general is a very good example. It describes behavior having taken place in secret at the FBI that simply cannot be defended when having been brought to light.

First, the inspector general's report identified unacceptable messages that were sent on FBI mobile devices and computer systems by 5 of the 15 FBI employees on the Clinton email investigation. Those messages reeked with political bias. The report found that through such messages, these employees ``brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI's handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.'' One message explicitly suggested a willingness to take official investigative steps for partisan reasons where there should be no partisanship. That message vowed to stop the election of Donald Trump.

Can you imagine an FBI employee in an official capacity, on official devices, taking that approach and then claiming not to be biased?

Because of that message, the IG was unable to conclude that the FBI's inaction on the Clinton email matter, for nearly a month prior to the election, was free from partisan bias.

The IG referred to the Bureau all five employees who had expressed partisan bias in order for the FBI to consider potential disciplinary action. Those messages showed a bureau plagued by arrogance, disrespect for policy and norms, and disgust of democratic accountability.

The report found that Director Comey's actions usurped the Department's authority. It called his decision of publicly announcing that Secretary Clinton would not be prosecuted as ``extraordinary'' and ``insubordinate.'' Director Comey acted as if he were accountable to no one except himself.

His subordinates also appeared content to ignore Bureau and Department policy and guidance--some, apparently, for their own personal interests.

The inspector general also recently concluded that the FBI's former Deputy, Andrew McCabe, authorized the disclosure of information to a reporter. That information confirmed the existence of an ongoing investigation. The IG report faulted McCabe for violating longstanding Department and Bureau policy. There is a public interest exception to that policy, but the inspector general found that McCabe authorized the disclosure of the information to make himself, McCabe, look good. Now McCabe claims Comey knew about it, but the FBI will not release information that supposedly supports that claim.

The FBI did little to nothing to address what now appears to be a culture of unauthorized contact with the media. Yet, somehow, every day, you read in the newspapers of the FBI's stiff-arming congressional oversight at every turn. Going to the newspapers is OK. When Congress wants the same information, no.

On the one hand, for example, the FBI stonewalls legitimate requests from the people's elected representatives, whom they ``hate,'' in the words of Agent Strzok. On the other hand, FBI employees are accepting meals, sports tickets, and golf outings from reporters.

Now the Department and the FBI are refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas while lecturing Congress about the need to control access to sensitive information. While FBI agents are breaking the rules by talking to reporters left and right, the Bureau goes after legitimate whistleblowers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse, according to law.

The level of hypocrisy is staggering. The Bureau was investigating Secretary Clinton for her use of private communications to transact public business, but the employees in the Bureau who were handling that very investigation, including the Director, did exactly the same thing. Of course, these employees were not exclusively using a private server that was highly vulnerable to outside attacks. There truly is a difference in the order of magnitude, but the FBI's employees' behavior could help explain their apparent lack of enthusiasm for investigating Clinton's clear alienation of the Federal records. After all, how could they accuse her of violating the Federal Records Act when it appears they may also have been violating the very same law?

These are only some of the examples in the inspector general's latest report that we had a hearing on before my Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago.

Former Director Comey said his people ``didn't give a rip about politics.'' We can see clearly now that that is just not true, at least not for five top individuals involved in this very high-profile, very important investigation. They now need to be held accountable for their actions. There is no place in the FBI for the kind of arrogance displayed in those text messages.

There is no place in the FBI for the kind of political timing and calculations made by the former Director. His subordinates openly discussed the enormous pressure they were under to close the Clinton email investigation before the political conventions. That was completely improper. Decisions at the FBI need to be made on merit, not on a political calendar.

The FBI needs to stay out of politics. It needs to submit to oversight. It needs to focus on doing its job to regain its reputation for objectivity. No one in this country is above the law. No one should be independent of accountability, especially not the FBI.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``An overview of the credit bureaus and the fair credit reporting act.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy and the International Economy.''

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Britt Cagle Grant, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, David James Porter, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, A. Marvin Quattlebaum,

Jr., of South Carolina, and Julius Ness Richardson, of South Carolina, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Roy Kalman Altman, and Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II, both to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Raul M. Arias- Marxuach, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, and Maria Chapa Lopez, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and Richard E. Taylor, Jr., to be United States Marshal for the Northern District of Texas, both of the Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is considering Brian Benczkowski to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. This is a critical position at the Department of Justice and its extended vacancy has hindered the agency's effectiveness. Mr. Benczkowski has the experience and qualifications to lead the Criminal Division. I am proud to support his nomination on the floor today.

Mr. Benczkowski was nominated 400 days ago. The Judiciary Committee held his confirmation hearing nearly a year ago. A fully staffed and well-functioning Criminal Division is vitally important to the Department of Justice's mission.

Over a dozen former U.S. Attorneys, from both the Bush and Obama administrations, support his nomination. They wrote that the head of the criminal division is ``the nerve center of federal prosecution, and the absence of a confirmed occupant can diminish the effectiveness of our law enforcement program throughout the country.''

The former prosecutors went on to state: ``Those of us who know Brian recognize that he is the right person to provide that leadership and to be a strong and effective partner with the United States Attorneys' Offices.''

Mr. Benczkowski already has an impressive legal career. He previously served as the Republican staff director on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2009-2010.

He also served as a counsel on the House Judiciary Committee. Before that time, he worked on the Senate Budget Committee and served as a counsel to Senator Domenici for 4 years.

Mr. Benczkowski excelled as a leader during his time on the Judiciary Committee. During his time as staff director, he was instrumental in passing the Fair Sentencing Act. This law reduced the disparity in federal criminal sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. His leadership was instrumental

in several pieces of bipartisan legislation, including the Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009, the Judicial Survivors Protection Act of 2009, and the Combat Meth Enhancement Act of 2009.

Mr. Benczkowski also served in several different roles at the Department of Justice. In 2008, he became the chief of staff to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. He also served as the chief of staff to the ATF. In total, he held five senior leadership positions in different divisions in the Department of Justice, working with components and law enforcement agencies across the Department.

During Mr. Benczkowski's decade in the private sector, he gained extensive litigation management experience that will serve him well as he oversees the Criminal Division.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said they will not support his nomination because he allegedly lacks experience. They say this because Mr. Benczkowski was never a prosecutor.

But the head of the Criminal Division is not a prosecutor. The position oversees criminal matters and formulates and implements criminal enforcement policy. It requires a deep knowledge of Federal criminal law, experience in government investigations, and strong management skills. Mr. Benczkowski, with his years of experience in relevant fields, is clearly qualified for this position.

But don't just take my word for it. Five former heads of the Criminal Division appointed under the Bush and Obama administrations said this about Mr. Benczkowski's nomination: ``Mr. Benczkowski has the necessary leadership, management and substantive experience to lead the Division.'' They noted that, ``by virtue of our service in the position to which Mr. Benczkowski has been nominated, we are familiar with the qualifications and experience necessary for success in the job.''

They went on to say ``throughout his career, on the criminal defense side in private practice and in the Department, he has worked on complex criminal investigations on a range of issues; significant criminal legislation matters; important criminal policy matters; and domestic and international law enforcement matters.''

These former heads of the Criminal Division know better than anyone the background and qualifications required to do the job, and they think that Mr. Benczkowski is a good fit for this role.

Some of my colleagues have raised a different concern, related to Mr. Benczkowski's legal representation of Alfa Bank while he was working at the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis. The Senate learned of this matter when reviewing his FBI background investigation.

Normally the committee doesn't publicly discuss any matters contained in the background investigation but because this matter raised some concerns for some senators, Mr. Benczkowski voluntarily waived his privacy rights, so we could freely and publicly question him on this matter.

At his hearing, the committee members extensively questioned him about his representation of Alfa Bank. He answered all our questions. He was not evasive. His testimony was public. It was very credible and uncontroverted.

Mr. Benczkowski also then responded in writing to several rounds of written questions submitted to him.

After this hearing, I helped Senator Durbin arrange an intelligence briefing with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence related to Alfa Bank.

I also helped arrange for the Deputy Attorney General to call Senator Durbin to explain the Department's long-standing tradition that it does not confirm nor deny investigations, particularly when it comes to a nominee's client.

When clients are under investigation, they need lawyers to represent them. Are we now going to have a political litmus test for nominees based upon the clients they stepped forward to represent in private practice?

There is no credible allegation that Mr. Benczkowski did anything wrong or unethical related to his limited representation of Alfa Bank or otherwise. He has promised to recuse himself from handling any matters involving Alfa Bank, and he has promised to consult with ethics officials regarding any other times he may need to recuse.

I believe Mr. Benczkowski will be an outstanding head of the Criminal Division. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the continuing need for addressing hard-hitting oversight of the Department of Defense. That need for oversight is as great today as it ever was. Waste is alive and very well at the Pentagon.

I have a poster, a blowup of a cartoon published in the Washington Post in 1985, during my early years in the U.S. Senate. It shows Ernie Fitzgerald, a famous whistleblower, confronting what are quite obviously his chief adversaries, the big spenders at the Pentagon.

As a senior Air Force official, Ernie Fitzgerald committed a crime. He says he ``committed truth.'' Ernie Fitzgerald is famous for, in 1968, exposing a $2.3 billion cost overrun on the C-5 aircraft program. In those days, having a senior Pentagon official like Ernie Fitzgerald speak the truth about a cost overrun on a high visibility program was unheard of. In fact, it was dangerous. It was so dangerous that it cost Ernie Fitzgerald his job. That is why I like to call Ernie Fitzgerald the father of whistleblowers.

The cartoon also depicts the infamous $640 toilet seat that made history back in those days as one example of the terrible waste at the Defense Department. That happened in 1985, when I, as a first-term Senator, began watchdogging the Pentagon. After a report uncovered a $640 toilet seat and a $400 hammer, I began asking very tough questions, such as: How could the bureaucrats possibly justify paying such exorbitant prices? I am still waiting for a straight answer.

A lot has changed since the 1980s. The internet, which was in its infancy in the 1980s, is now a part of everyday life. Mobile phones back then were once the size of bricks. Now those mobile phones can fit in the palm of your hand and do a lot more work than just making telephone calls. But one thing hasn't changed in all those decades-- wasteful Department of Defense procurement practices.

Since I began my work on this issue, there have been 6 Presidents and 12 Secretaries of Defense, yet the problem of wasteful spending at the Defense Department keeps going on. Since those earliest revelations, there has been a steady flow of new reports on spare part rip-offs. No political party is immune from these horror stories.

During the administration of George H.W. Bush, oversight efforts uncovered soap dishes that cost $117 and pliers that cost nearly $1,000. In some cases the Department of Defense admitted that some high prices didn't pass the smell test.

True, better deals were negotiated. People tried to make some changes, but to offset losses on lower prices, the contractors jacked up overhead and management charges, making the overall contract price the same.

Exercising oversight on these contracts is like working with a balloon. You know the famous balloon--when you squeeze it in one place, the problem pops out someplace else.

Under President Bill Clinton, a report by the Government Accountability Office--we know it here as the GAO--revealed that one defense contractor paid its top executives more than $33 million a year, an amount that was reimbursed by the Federal Government as part of a contract.

I happen to agree that a company has a right to pay its executives whatever it wants; however, when the government enters into cost- reimbursement contracts, those contracts in which the government directly repays the company for costs incurred instead of paying a fixed price, the contractor loses incentive to control costs, and top executives draw sky-high salaries at the taxpayers' expense.

I introduced an amendment in the 1997 Defense authorization bill to curb executive compensation billed directly to the taxpayers, but as you might expect, with the respect the Defense Department has in this body, that amendment was voted down.

During the Bush administration in the early 2000s, I worked with the GAO to expose abuse of government charge cards by Defense Department employees. We found some truly egregious expenditures--for examples, over $20,000 at a jewelry store, over $34,000 on gambling, and over $70,000 on tickets to sporting events and Broadway shows. In some cases, employees who spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on personal expenses--way beyond anything that was an ordinary business expense-- were not only not asked to repay the money to the taxpayers but oddly were promoted and even issued new charge cards. Instead of being held accountable, it is quite obvious they were rewarded for their illegal activity.

During the Presidency of President Obama, I pressed the Pentagon to answer for a $43 million gas station built in Afghanistan. This project was revealed as part of an audit conducted by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction. When I pressed for answers, the Defense Department responded by saying that the direct cost was actually only $5 million, but the number didn't include the massive overhead costs charged to the project, which pushed the overall price tag up to that $43 million. Anybody anywhere else--outside the beltway--knows that doesn't meet the smell test, and that is not even a commonsense answer to my overall question. How did we waste $43 million there?

Even more alarming is what happened to the rest of the $800 million provided for other business development projects in our efforts to help Afghanistan recover. Auditors could only find documentation to support about half of the money spent, leaving about $400 million unaccounted for. This kind of sloppy bookkeeping means we may never know how the rest of the money was spent. Was it used for unauthorized purposes or pocketed by crooked people? We will probably never know.

Now, under the Presidency of Donald Trump, over 30 years since all this started with me, the overpriced airborne toilet seat has really gained altitude. Instead of the $640 that this cost, the new pricetag was reported by the Air Force to be $10,000, and that happens to be only for the lid of the toilet stool. Any American can tell you that $10,000 for a toilet seat cover is ridiculous. Americans work too hard to see their precious tax dollars flushed down the toilet.

I asked the Department of Defense for confirmation that the seats cost $10,000. They still haven't answered my letter, but after my inquiry, the Department of Defense has changed their story. They clarified to the media that they are now 3D printing the toilet seat lids for much less, but they never answered my questions. We don't know how many seat covers were purchased at the $10,000 pricetag; we don't know when they moved to 3D printing instead of purchasing; and we still don't have documentation or official confirmation on the true price of toilet seat lids.

Even if the issue of the toilet seat has been sorted out, it is clear the Department of Defense still does not have a grip on spending. OIG reports have revealed that the Pentagon frequently overpays for simple parts and does not perform adequate cost analysis.

One of the primary culprits for continuing waste and misuse of tax dollars is the Department of Defense's noncompliance with the congressional

mandate to pass an audit. The Department of Defense has a very bad record. It is impossible to know how much things cost or what is being bought when nobody is keeping good track of the money being shoveled out the door.

For nearly 30 years, we have been pushing the Pentagon to earn a clean opinion on any of their audits. Way back in 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act, which required all departments of the government to present a financial statement to an inspector general for audit by March 1992. All departments have complied and earned clean opinions except one and that is the Department of Defense. Instead of clean opinions, the Department of Defense has earned a long string of failing opinions called disclaimers. It boils down to the fact that the books at the Department of Defense are unauditable.

In 2010, 20 years after that 1990 congressional action, Congress finally got fed up and passed a new law requiring the Pentagon to be ready for audit by September 2017. The Department was given 7 long years to get its act together and to meet the same requirements as every other Federal agency entrusted with public money. Obviously, that deadline has come and gone like other deadlines have come and gone. According to the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer, Mr. David Norquist, a clean audit is still at least 10 years away. That is 10 years of not being able to follow the money. If you can't follow the money, you don't know whether it is spent legally.

There is a longstanding, underlying problem preventing the Pentagon from reaching the goal of a clean audit. This is the so-called feeder system. I will not describe a feeder system, but feeder systems are supposed to capture transaction data, but those feeder systems are broken. Auditors cannot connect the dots between contracts and payments. You can't follow the money because there is no reliable transaction data and little or no supporting documentation. You tend to spend money without knowing what you even bought. The Pentagon will never earn a clean opinion until those accounting systems are able to produce reliable financial data that meet accepted standards.

Over the last 25 years, the Department of Defense has spent billions trying to fix these outdated accounting systems but with no success. How is it that the very mighty Pentagon can develop the most advanced weapons in the world but can't seem to acquire something as simple as an accounting system? We need to get to the bottom of this problem and fix it.

I am working with my colleagues on the Budget Committee to get the Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent review of the Pentagon's effort to acquire modern accounting systems. What is the problem? That is what we are trying to find out. Should the Defense Department keep trying to fix the antiquated feeder systems or is it time to develop new, fully integrated systems that can deliver reliable financial information? We need and we want some answers.

The Department of Defense is currently attempting to conduct a full financial audit. Secretary Mattis has directed all employees to support the audit, and the results are expected in November. Although the new Chief Financial Officer appears to be making a good-faith effort to get a handle on the problem, he also happens to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year for audits with a zero probability of success. It could be very wasteful spending that kind of money if they don't have a feeder system in place.

The first priority of our Federal Government remains and ought to be national security. We must ensure that our military forces remain strong enough to deter any potential aggressor and, as a result, preserve the peace.

The men and women on the frontlines deserve fair compensation and the best weapons and equipment money can buy. We want to field the most capable military force in the world. Because national defense is so very important, congressional watchdogging of defense spending is very essential. We don't want one single dollar to be wasted--not even a penny.

Until the Defense Department is able to earn a clean opinion on a very regular basis, we have no assurance that Defense dollars are being spent wisely and, most importantly, according to law. Report after report shows that precious Defense dollars are being wasted, misused, and unaccounted for. Reforms have been made, but very clearly the war on waste has not been won. Much more work needs to be done.

From my oversight post in the Senate, I will continue to apply pressure on the Pentagon to step up the war on waste. I don't expect much help from the inspector general. Mr. Fine seems to be AWOL on waste. I raised the issue of the $10,000 toilet seat cover with him over a month ago and still haven't received an answer. His office found the time to update the media about the toilet seat cover. Yet my letter has gone unanswered.

However, after revelations about the $43 million gas station, Secretary Mattis's reaction was sweet music to my ears. He issued an all-hands memo. In that memo, he stated flatout: I will not tolerate that kind of waste. Known for being a man of your word, Secretary Mattis, I am counting on you for your help. Maybe together we can wipe out the culture of indifference toward the American people's money by the Pentagon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last evening I joined many of my Senate colleagues at the White House as the President introduced Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most widely respected judges in the country. I heard the President last night refer to him as a judge's judge. He is an outstanding choice to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Judge Kavanaugh is a former law clerk of the Justice he has been nominated to replace, and that is Justice Kennedy. I talked about Justice Kennedy's service on the Supreme Court and to the people of this country in my speech yesterday. Judge Kavanaugh earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. He then clerked for judges on the Third and Ninth Circuit before joining the chambers of Justice Kennedy as a law clerk. He served in the Office of the Solicitor General and also the Office of the Independent Counsel.

After several years in private practice, Judge Kavanaugh returned to public service, working in the White House Counsel's office and as staff secretary for President George W. Bush. In 2006, he was confirmed to the DC Circuit, where he has served since. He is also a well- regarded law professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.

Judge Kavanaugh is a leader not only in the law but throughout his community. As examples, he volunteers at Catholic Charities on a regular basis and coaches both daughters' youth basketball teams.

The committee has received a letter from former law clerks of Judge Kavanaugh, people who represent views across the political and ideological spectrum. Many judges describe their former law clerks as adopted family members. In other words, law clerks know their judges best.

So I turn to what some of those said through letters they sent to our committee. Judge Kavanaugh's former law clerks write that he is a person with immense ``strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks.''

I want to read a longer quote from that letter.

He is unfailingly warm and gracious with his colleagues no

matter how strongly they disagree about a case, and he is

well-liked and respected by judges and lawyers across the

ideological spectrum as a result. . . . He always makes time

for us, his law clerks. He makes it to every wedding, answers

every career question, and gives unflinchingly honest advice.

That advice often boils down to the same habits we saw him

practice in chambers every day: Shoot straight, be careful

and brave, work as hard as you possibly can, and then work a

little harder.

His judicial record is extraordinary. The Supreme Court has adopted his view of the law in a dozen cases. Judge Kavanaugh's opinions demonstrate profound respect for the Constitution's separation of powers. He understands that it is Congress' job to pass laws, and where he sits, in judicial chambers, it is the role of those people--and he figures it is his role--to faithfully apply those laws as Congress intended. That is why his opinions emphasize that judges must focus on the text and apply laws as written by those of us elected to the Congress, not by unelected and, in turn, largely unaccountable, Federal judges. It is meant that they aren't to be accountable except to the Constitution and the laws of this country. Courts may not rewrite laws to suit their policy preferences.

Judge Kavanaugh has a record of judicial independence. He has shown a willingness to rein in executive branch agencies when they abuse or exceed their authority. You don't have to be in Congress very long to understand that it is a daily habit of people in the executive branch of government to go way beyond--or to feel their way, way beyond--what the law allows that person or that program to do. As Judge Kavanaugh has explained in numerous opinions, executive branch agencies may not assume more power than Congress has specifically granted them, and he has emphasized that judges may not surrender their duty to interpret laws to executive branch agencies. Now, that is pretty common sense for anybody who has had eighth grade civics, high school government, or political science classes in college, but it isn't something that all judges agree with.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for Judge Kavanaugh's nomination in the coming weeks.

As I noted in my remarks to this body yesterday, liberal outside groups and Democratic leaders decided weeks ago to block whomever the President nominates. They are already pushing feeble arguments to cause needless delays. For example, some Democratic leaders and Democratic Members of the Senate who aren't leaders say that we shouldn't confirm a nominee nominated during a midterm election year. Where did they get that idea? The Senate has never operated the way they would suggest. Sitting Justices Breyer and Kagan--prominent examples that I can freely give to you but also numerous of their predecessors--were nominated and confirmed in midterm election years. Where do my colleagues get that idea, that just because this is a midterm election year, you can't take up these nominations? It happens that Kagan was approved in August 2010, as an example.

The American people see this argument for what it is--obstruction, pure

and simple. After all, Democratic leaders announced that they will oppose anyone nominated by President Trump--anyone. In fact, some Democratic Senators announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh mere minutes after the President nominated him. It is clear that a number of my Democratic colleagues have chosen the path of obstruction and resistance, not, as the Constitution offers, every Senator giving advice and consent.

We have a highly qualified nominee who has authored numerous influential judicial opinions. I stated how they have been respected even when those same cases got to the Supreme Court. Leading liberal law professor Akhil Reed Amar endorsed Judge Kavanaugh in the pages of the New York Times. But some of my colleagues can't even bring themselves to at least consider Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.

As I mentioned yesterday, liberal outside groups and their allies are trying to convince Senators to ask Judge Kavanaugh his views on specific cases and Supreme Court precedent. I want to emphasize that these questions are inappropriate. In greater detail, I said that yesterday.

Justice Ginsburg announced--a famous statement of hers--during her own confirmation hearing that a nominee should offer ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' of cases that can potentially come before the Court.

Maybe some of my colleagues think, well, if some are going to come in a couple of months after you are on the Court, why can't you give us your views on that? But they might be asking questions about something 10 years down the road, so how legitimate are the views? Are you going to overturn this President, or are you going to rule this particular way in a particular case?

We also have Justice Kagan declining to state her views on Roe v. Wade, saying: ``The application of Roe in future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.''

So you expect a Justice to look at the facts of a case, look at the law, or look at the Constitution, and leave their own personal views out of it, but you expect them to do it independent of anything they said in their hearing before the Judiciary Committee because nothing should be said there that is going to influence something 10 years down the road.

I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will likewise decline to comment on his views of particular cases decided by the Supreme Court.

I congratulate Judge Kavanaugh on this nomination. I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Kavanaugh earlier today. I know he looks forward to answering questions from my colleagues in the coming weeks. I look forward to hearing from him again when he appears before our Senate Judiciary Committee.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, tonight the President will announce his nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. That announcement is because of a vacancy created by Justice Kennedy's recent retirement.

Justice Kennedy left an important legacy of more than three decades on the Supreme Court. I voted for his confirmation 30 years ago. Justice Kennedy demonstrated his deep commitment to our constitutional liberties. It is no surprise that some of his greatest opinions defended free speech and religious liberty. I hope Justice Kennedy's successor carries forward this legacy.

I am optimistic that the person the President nominates tonight will be highly qualified and committed to the rule of law. I am optimistic because President Trump already appointed one such Supreme Court Justice: Neil Gorsuch.

The President's selection process is the most transparent in history. He issued a list of potential Supreme Court nominees directly to the American people during his 2016 campaign. To my knowledge, no other Presidential candidate has ever done that. The list demonstrated the types of Justices he would appoint to the Bench. The American people voted for President Trump in part because of that list of names and what it reflected and his promise to nominate these types of jurists.

Any of the 25 people on the President's list would be an excellent choice and worthy of the Senate's serious consideration, but already we are seeing from liberal outside groups and some of the Democratic leadership a desperate attempt to block the nominee--any nominee--by whatever means necessary. Democratic leaders have pledged to block anyone from the President's list without even knowing who that nominee is and regardless of his or her qualifications. Think about that a while. The President has a list of 25 names, but some Democratic leaders have already said that not one of them is acceptable, zero out of 25 highly respected, highly qualified individuals--not even worthy of this body's consideration. That is an incredible statement by some of the leaders on the other side of the aisle.

This preemptive attack on a yet-to-be-named nominee is a preview of the obstacles and calls for needless delays we are sure to see from some of my colleagues. I have already heard several weak arguments made in an attempt to delay the confirmation hearing, but the Democratic leaders have shown their hand. The motive is to block any nominee from the President's list. Whatever reasons for delay, it is clear that their single motivating factor is blocking the nominee selected tonight, whoever he or she is.

The first delay tactic I heard was that the Senate shouldn't confirm a nominee during a midterm election, but the Senate has never operated like that. Justice Kagan and Justice Breyer were confirmed in midterm election years, in addition to many Justices who served before them. Democratic leadership and outside groups are so desperate to block this nominee that they are willing to rewrite history to do it.

We have a long history of confirming Justices nominated during a midterm election year. We don't have a long history of confirming Justices nominated during a Presidential election year. It has been nearly 80 years since we have done that. Former chairman Joe Biden announced in 1992 that the Senate shouldn't confirm any Justices during a Presidential election year. Senator Schumer said something similar in 2007--the year before a Presidential election. The Biden-Schumer rule pertains only to Presidential elections, not midterm election years.

It is important to let the American people decide who should choose a nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy. That is why I waited until after the 2016 Presidential election to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. But the individual who selects nominees--the President of the United States--is not on the ballot in midterm elections. The rule simply doesn't apply during a midterm election, and that is this year.

Another losing talking point is that we shouldn't confirm any nominee while Robert Mueller's investigation is ongoing. And who knows when that is going to end. This argument is again inconsistent with the historical precedent. Look at what President Clinton was involved in-- an investigation of that President over Whitewater. At the same time, Justice Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court--at a time when the independent counsel was doing that investigation. At the time, his documents were under a grand jury subpoena. What other constitutional powers do the proponents of this argument believe that the President should surrender simply because of an investigation?

This is obstruction masquerading as silliness. What drives this preemptive obstruction, you might ask. It is liberal outside groups' stated fear that the President's nominee will vote to invalidate the Affordable Care Act or overturn Roe v. Wade. Well, the same five- Justice majority who preserved the Affordable Care Act is still on the Court. Justice Kennedy voted to strike it down. Replacing him with a like-minded Justice would not change the outcome. We hear the same thing about Roe v. Wade every time there is a Supreme Court vacancy. It was a big deal when Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Court 37 years ago. Yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

It is pretty clear that Justices have a way of surprising us. Who could have predicted that Justice Scalia would strike down a ban on flag-burning? It is a fool's errand to try to predict how a Justice will rule on some hypothetical future case.

This regular uproar about Roe v. Wade shows the difference between how many Democrats and Republicans view the courts.

Liberal outside groups and many Democrats have a litmus test. They seem to be very results-oriented and focus on policy outcomes of judicial decisions. They expect--they even demand--their judges to rule in favor of their preferred policies. Liberal outside groups and their allies simply want judges to be politicians hiding under robes. That is why Senate Democrats were so blatant in changing Senate rules so that they could stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Former Democratic leader Harry Reid made no bones about making sure there were enough DC Circuit judges to protect the Obama administration's policies on regulations.

Republicans, on the other hand, want judges who will rule according to the law and leave policymaking to elected representatives, where the Constitution prefers and demands that it be.

I don't want judges who decide cases based upon whether the results are liberal or conservative. Judges should rule according to the law, no matter what their views are on policy outcomes. Judge Gorsuch recently said that judges wear ``robes, not capes.'' I agree with that assessment.

Liberal outside groups and their allies want judges who will decide cases with liberal policy results. Republicans expect judges to leave their policy aside when deciding a case. That is the

fundamental difference that will become crystal clear to the American people during this confirmation debate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for the nominee in the coming weeks. Exactly when, I don't know, and I shouldn't know at this point. I want to emphasize a few things, though. One, it is inappropriate for Senators to ask the nominee how he or she would rule on certain cases sometime in the near future or 10 years from now. Two, it is inappropriate to ask the nominee about his or her personal views on the merits of Supreme Court precedent.

The bottom line is that Senators should not try to extract assurances from nominees on how they will decide particular cases in exchange for a confirmation vote because how do you know down the road--1 year or 2 years or 15 years--what the case might be at that particular time?

Justice Ginsburg made it pretty simple for everybody. During her confirmation hearing in the early 1990s, she set the standard, promising, in her words, ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews.'' She said this in a further long quote:

It would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this

legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the

Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to

rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such

questions, I would act injudiciously.

This standard was reaffirmed by every Supreme Court nominee since then. For the last 25 or 26 years, the Ginsburg rule has been what is followed by other nominees for the Supreme Court. Justice Kagan said this about Roe v. Wade, following the Ginsburg rule:

I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment

on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is

settled law entitled to precedential weight. The application

of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are

issues likely to come before the Court in the future.

I expect this nominee announced tonight to likewise follow the Ginsburg standard. I will ask the nominee how he or she views the law and a Justice's role on the Bench. I will not presume to know how a nominee will rule on any case that might come before the Court today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. I certainly will not be basing my vote on whether I think I will agree with the majority of his or her decisions.

The press has reported that the President has focused on six or seven potential nominees for this vacancy. Each one is well qualified and would make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.

The nominee will get a full and fair hearing. Under my watch, the Senate Judiciary Committee will never be a rubberstamp. Several recent nominees to lower courts learned that the hard way.

The process will be fair and will be transparent, as much as I can make it. That has been my approach during my nearly 38 years in the Senate--and all of those 38 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee-- and I will not change that. The American people must be confident that this Senate has fulfilled its constitutional duty of very independently vetting this nominee before we confirm a Justice to a lifetime appointment on the highest Court in the land.

I eagerly await the President's announcement this evening. I look forward to hearing from the nominee when he or she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, over the past few days, the issue of family separation has reached a fever pitch. All you have to do is look at the daily newspapers or cable television, and you know that is true. This is a crisis that has been brewing since the surge of young migrants across our border way back in 2014 and is just now reaching a new peak.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I find it ridiculous to suggest that members of my political party--the Republican Party-- somehow support the idea of separating families. No one wants families separated. No one wants to see families exploited. To suggest otherwise is to feed the frenzy that has been whipped up over the last few days.

Lost in this frenzy is the reality that the only groups standing to truly benefit while America is divided are smugglers, drug cartels, and human traffickers. They know about the weaknesses and loopholes in our current immigration law, and they aren't afraid to use those weaknesses and loopholes. For these people, it is all about profit. Smugglers, drug cartels, and human traffickers don't care about human lives.

In 2015 and 2016, I questioned the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security after receiving reports that human trafficking was increasing, and some smugglers weren't being arrested even after smuggling people across the border dozens of times. The lack of consequences emboldened these smugglers.

At that time, I also asked the Obama Department of Homeland Security about a dangerous tactic used by smugglers to pair kids with unrelated adults to create the appearance of a family unit. The word ``appearance'' is key here.

Knowing the legal loopholes better than most, these smugglers knew that our laws, like the Flores settlement agreement, prevented family detention.

Flores vs. Reno effectively prohibits the government from maintaining custody of immigrant children even when they are with their families. Through this agreement, the government had sent the message that if you come alone, you will be detained, but if you come with a family, and as a family, you will likely be released. Understanding this, these smart smugglers knew they could sell this false freedom and build a cruel new business model.

In 2015, I was horrified to learn that human smuggling rings were exploiting children and selling them to the highest bidder to get to the United States and avoid detention. That is right. Smugglers would use kids like pawns in an effort to help adults avoid detention when coming across the border. To truly help families, any solution we come up with must protect against this evil stunt by the smugglers.

Department officials reported that kids were being kidnapped, or adopted, and then smuggled with their unrelated adult so-called ``family member'' to the United States.

U.S. Government officials work closely with foreign officials, trying to locate and safely return these kidnapped children to their mothers and fathers. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. For example, a woman paid a smuggling organization in Brazil $13,000 in fees to smuggle her to the United States. She flew from her home country of Brazil to Mexico, where she was paired with a minor child. She was then instructed to claim the child as her own upon arrival to the United States.

After learning about this scam, ICE intervened, and the woman was removed. The child, however, was never found. She will never be reunited with her real family. She is likely separated from that real family forever. That is all because the flaws in our current immigration system permitted--and even encouraged--her to be trafficked.

I heard just yesterday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has temporarily stopped referring cases for criminal prosecution, but that is exactly what the Obama administration did during their tenure. It is exactly why we are dealing with this terrible situation that separates children and families in the first place. Failure to refer cases for prosecution will only give a green light to these smugglers, once more putting at risk the very kids we are worried about protecting, and we ought to be worried about protecting them.

This tactic of creating fake family units isn't new and isn't limited to just a one-time deal. Last week, Secretary Nielsen reported that this tactic is still being utilized. She stated:

In the last five months, we've had a 314 percent increase

in adults and children arriving at the border, fraudulently

claiming to be a family unit. This is, obviously, of concern.

These fake family units are often provided with fraudulent documents to support that the group is actually a family unit when we all know it is not a family unit. There is a whole industry that exists to create fake birth certificates and many other documents that show a familial relationship. As the tactic to create these fake family units has become more popular, the underground market has exploded. Smugglers are very smart, and many of them are masters of gaming our immigration system.

Let me reiterate that the way the Flores vs. Reno agreement is currently applied, the government can't keep immigrant children even if they are with their parents. Flores discourages the Federal Government from keeping families together in Department of Homeland Security custody. If we remedy this situation, not only would we be able to keep families together, but we would also be telling the smugglers who profit from this that their days of making millions of dollars off the most vulnerable are over. The most vulnerable--the kids we are talking about--aren't getting the protection they ought to get when they are separated from their parents.

To me, the answer to this problem appears to be very simple. We should repeal the Flores decision only as it applies to accompanied children so that the Department of Homeland Security

can keep families together in family residential centers. That is very simple, and that is very quick. That is why, last week, I worked hand in hand with Senator Tillis to produce a bill that would do just that.

Senator Tillis's thoughtful bill, in addition to repealing parts of the Flores decision, would also allow more immigrant court judges to be hired and would provide for detained families to have their cases heard first.

Senator Tillis's bill would immediately end this crisis and wouldn't return us to the failed catch-and-release policies that even the former Obama Department of Homeland Secretary, Jeh Johnson, has acknowledged are poor public policies.

I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Tillis and this Senator to fix this problem. The American people are counting on it. Thousands of families are depending upon it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.