[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 140 (Wednesday, August 22, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5821-S5825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURE ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, yesterday Facebook, Google, and Twitter
removed hundreds of pages, groups, and accounts of Iranian and Russian
individuals who had coordinated attacks to try to influence our
election. Earlier this week, conservative think tanks, Republican
groups, and Senate official sites were targeted by Russian hackers.
Today, the Democratic National Committee just detected and announced
what it believes was a sophisticated attack to try to hack into its
database system--very similar to the attack Hillary Clinton's campaign
had during the 2016 election time period. Today, we postponed in the
Senate a committee debating election security.
Clearly, states such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others are
trying to influence our elections. They demonstrated the capability,
the willingness, and the intent to come after us to try to influence
us. They are looking for vulnerabilities in States, not to necessarily
pick one candidate over another but to sow chaos and use information
against us.
These same nation states are also pursuing independent hackers--not
necessarily working for their government at all but just individual
hackers who are willing to be hired to do whatever these nation states
want them to do or to hack in and get information and then sell that
information to a nation state that might be interested in it.
Election security is not a partisan issue; it is a democracy issue.
We should take the security of our next election seriously, just as we
take the security of our infrastructure, our banking system, our power
and electrical grid, and our water seriously. Those are areas that need
to be secured. I am disappointed that there was yet another delay in
working through that on election security. But I do appreciate the work
of the Rules Committee and what they are doing to continue to refine
this.
I do anticipate that in the days ahead, we will have a hearing on
this issue, and it will move to this floor for final passage. The bill
that is being debated is pretty straightforward.
It requires voter-verified paper audit trails. In order to receive
any kind of Federal funding, they have to have some way to audit their
elections.
It requires that all States that take Federal money to help them in
their election systems also conduct post-election audits that are
determined by the States. It is not a reason for the Federal Government
to step in and tell the States how to do that; that is uniquely a role
of the States.
[[Page S5822]]
It requires communication between the States and the Federal
Government on election infrastructure breaches. There are ways to do
that, to honor the States' authority to run their elections but still
understand that we have vulnerability nationwide if any one State is
vulnerable. I heard the arguments on the bill and on information
sharing, but I would say that it is clear that an attack on any one
State, on any one county, could jeopardize the integrity of our
Nation's election security system.
I have heard that States may not need to conduct their own post-
election audits. It has been kind of a ``trust us; things will work out
fine.'' The challenge I have with that is that five States in the
United States right now and as of this election coming up in November
will not be able to even do a post-audit election on their systems.
Nine additional States have some counties within their States that
cannot do a post-election audit. So the problem with ``trust me'' is
that there is no way to be able to verify on the back side. I get
``trust me'' but no verification.
The bill that is coming through, the Secure Elections Act that Amy
Klobuchar from Minnesota and I are working so hard to work through the
system, allows the States to run their own election systems and allows
for the flexibility that the States absolutely need in the vendors they
choose to use and all the details they choose on that, but it requires
the simple ability to audit their systems after it is over so that no
nation state, no group of hackers can stand up and say ``We did it''
and there is no way to be able to prove them wrong. Audits are not
recounts; audits just give voters confidence that the vote they cast
was counted.
To be clear, we have advanced a tremendous amount since the 2016 time
period. The Department of Homeland Security has done a lot to help
protect our system. States have stepped up significantly to protect
their systems, but there is more to go.
The DHS now has security clearances for election officials or has the
capability to have an immediate security conversation with every single
State in the United States. That is important because in 2016 that
didn't occur, and the threat against the United States could not be
communicated to the States sometimes for months, sometimes for over a
year. That has been fixed.
There has been cyber assistance that has been offered to every single
State, and many of those States have taken it. The DHS has been able to
work with individual States and to check their systems to make sure
they are secure, and it has been able to provide filters so as to
filter out malicious hackers on top of their already consistent filters
that are there. This is to provide a kind of belt-and-suspenders
protection for their election systems.
The DHS has already given priority to any requests from any State
that asks for election assistance. The DHS will literally take people
off of other assignments in order to get those individuals to the
election officials of any State that asks for it, and all requests from
every State that has asked for additional assistance have been
fulfilled.
Recently, the DHS also ran what it called the ``Tabletop the Vote
2018.'' It ran a national cyber exercise in order to practice how this
would work, what would work, and what vulnerabilities there would be.
The DHS received tremendous feedback from the States as it did the
exercise. It participated with the States and found out where they
could share information. The DHS has set up a tremendous resource for
election day itself so as to watch out for malicious attacks during
election day and the runup to the election and to make sure it has
rapid communication.
None of that existed in 2016. That is real progress, but we have to
get some of these legislative solutions in place as well. At the end of
the day, States are going to control their elections, but I don't
expect every State in the United States to protect itself against a
foreign attack. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to step
in and help protect our systems. We are trying to hit this balance with
the Secure Elections Act, wherein the States would run their elections,
the Federal Government would do its part, and the American people would
do their part by stepping up to vote and have confidence in knowing
their votes actually count.
Congress needs to pass this legislation. We need to move it across
the committee line and across this floor because the election issues
that we are facing right now are not going away and are not getting
easier, and States could use our help. It is about time we stepped up
and did it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Climate Change
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his
unwavering commitment to elevating the urgent need for all of us to
take action on climate change.
Since 2012, Senator Whitehouse has given over 200 speeches on climate
change--faithfully, passionately, intellectually--and has warned us of
what is to come if we don't get our act together. So I thank Senator
Whitehouse. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with him in the
fight to save this Earth. This is on all of us.
The facts are in. The science is irrefutable. Climate change is real.
It is real, and it is happening every single day all around us. It is
not made up. It is not a Chinese hoax. It is the most existential
threat our world has ever known, and we are not doing enough to stop
it. That is why I wanted to be here tonight to stand with my friend and
my colleague Senator Whitehouse to ring the alarm. It is time for us to
wake up.
As I think about the consequences of inaction, I can't help but
reflect on the financial crisis that nearly destroyed our global
economy 10 years ago. Millions of hard-working people lost their jobs,
millions lost their homes, and millions lost their savings. The
financial crisis nearly tore apart the global economy for a whole
variety of reasons, but the failure to act on credible, verifiable data
is what nearly destroyed our economy.
It didn't have to happen. We could have prevented it. Yet here we are
again, ignoring clear and blatant warnings of another financial
disaster in the making. The evidence is mounting every single day with
fires blazing out of control, extreme storms and hurricanes, rising sea
levels, and warming oceans. Our planet is in danger, which means our
economy is in danger.
Recent data show that a major climate-related disaster could trigger
a global financial crisis, the likes of which our economy has never
seen. Now, I don't say that to predict some kind of doomsday disaster.
This is a real and present threat to our global economy, and here is
why: The driving cause of climate change is emissions of carbon
dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases from humans in their
burning of fossil fuels. We are causing this every day.
Scientists estimate that humans can only burn so much more carbon
before causing a global temperature rise of 2 degrees. A 2-degree rise
in temperatures would be devastating--rising sea levels, droughts,
famine. Yet, as of today, the worldwide oil and gas industry has carbon
reserves that already far exceed the amount of carbon we can burn to
stay under the 2-degree temperature rise.
So what does that actually mean?
All of these carbon resources will become less and less valuable as
the environmental costs of burning carbon become more and more severe.
That will devastate the global coal, oil, and gas industries. One
estimate is that 82 percent of all coal reserves, 49 percent of global
gas reserves, and 33 percent of global oil reserves could go unused.
Some experts predict that we will cause the value of fossil fuel
companies to be cut in half, with the U.S. potentially losing its
entire oil and gas industry. That could make the 2008 financial crisis
look like a walk in the park. That is what is at stake for our global
system.
What about here at home?
Listen to this: Rising sea levels and spreading flood plains appear
likely to destroy billions of dollars in property and to displace
millions of people. ``The economic losses and social disruption may
happen gradually, but they are likely to be greater in total than those
experienced in the housing crisis and Great Recession.''
Who wrote that? Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored company that is
responsible for buying millions of mortgages every year. That is not
[[Page S5823]]
some partisan view; that is a cold-eyed assessment of the likely damage
that climate change will cause to our economy and to our citizens.
Another recent study, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
found that over the next 30 years, 311,000 homes will be in danger of
being flooded every 2 weeks--311,000. That means more than half a
million Americans could have their homes inundated with water multiple
times every single month. Think about the financial toll the constant
flooding will take on these families and the homes. Well, after being
bombarded with saltwater over and over again, a coastal property
meltdown would be inevitable.
Yet here is what gives me comfort and why I am inspired to work with
Senator Whitehouse and why I am inspired by his work and why I had to
be here tonight. We can prevent this crisis, but only if we act. It is
going to take public-private partnerships, CEOs, and Members of
Congress to work together to prepare for the worst. That means
companies need to begin including the risk of climate change in their
investment and risk management practices.
Climate change can be an economic opportunity if we act boldly and
decisively, which is something I know Senator Whitehouse will address
shortly. If we fail to act, it will be a financial catastrophe as well
as an environmental catastrophe, and it will put the 2008 financial
crisis to shame. We know it is coming; we need the political will to do
something about it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am so grateful to join my colleague
today, Senator Warren, to discuss the financial and economic risks that
are posed by climate change.
You have just heard the Senator from my neighboring State of
Massachusetts lay out a powerful case. Given the gravity of these risks
and given our recent experience of the 2008 financial crisis, we should
be doing everything we can to prevent another economic meltdown.
We know exactly what we need to do to mitigate these economic
threats. We need to transition from polluting fossil fuels to clean,
renewable energy. We can do this simply by giving renewables a fair
market chance against the gigantic public subsidies on which the fossil
fuel industry float. Put a price on carbon emissions so the price of
the polluting product reflects its pollution costs to society. That is
the economics 101 answer.
The problem is that fossil fuel behemoths are desperate to duck the
costs of their pollution. They want to protect this massive market
failure. Why do you suppose they are the biggest special interest
political force in the world? It is to do that work. Look over in the
House, where just recently an army of fossil fuel lobbyists and front
groups pushed through an industry-scripted resolution and declared,
falsely, that pricing carbon would be bad for the American economy. All
but eight House Republicans voted the way the industry instructed--for
a resolution that was, for them, politically correct in a polluter-
obedient kind of way but was factually false.
Today, in my 217th ``Time to Wake Up'' climate change speech, I am
going to relate recent testimony by a respected Nobel Prize-winning
economics professor, Joseph Stiglitz. Unlike all of that cheap
political chicanery around the House resolution, Professor Stiglitz'
report was presented under oath and was subject to cross-examination.
Fat chance the climate deniers would ever let themselves get cross-
examined under oath. Truth is kryptonite for them.
Stiglitz' report came out in Juliana v. United States--a case in
which the plaintiffs were children who sued the U.S. Government for
violating their constitutional rights through a knowing failure to
protect them from the costs of unlimited carbon emissions.
Here is what Stiglitz' testimony states:
[The U.S. Government's] continuing support and perpetuation
of a national fossil-fuel based energy system and continuing
delay in addressing climate change is saddling and will
continue to saddle Youth Plaintiffs with an enormous cost
burden, as well as tremendous risks.
Obviously, when Stiglitz talks about ``youth plaintiffs,'' his
testimony actually covers all of the children and future generations
who will bear the terrible, foreseeable costs of climate havoc.
In particular, Stiglitz notes that ``rising sea levels will lead to
massive reductions in property value,'' just as Senator Warren and
Freddie Mac have warned, and children and future generations will have
to ``bear the enormous cost of relocating the people and infrastructure
that are now on this [inundated] land.''
Of all places, the State of Kentucky has a report that warns that its
population might rise because people will have to flee coastal States.
Even the leader's own State recognizes this coastal problem.
This testimony echoes other warnings that I have related in recent
speeches about this looming coastal property value crash--warnings we
hear from sources as diverse as Freddie Mac, as the Union of Concerned
Scientists, through insurance trade publications, and now from this
Nobel Prize-winning economist. Peer-reviewed research also shows a gap
emerging between coastal and inland property values, which is what you
would expect as an early warning signal.
Stiglitz' report, however, isn't doom and gloom. It actually shows
that economic gains result from a wise transition to sustainable energy
sources.
Stiglitz writes:
Retrofitting the global economy for a climate change would
help to restore aggregate demand and growth. . . . Climate
policies, if well designed and implemented, are consistent
with growth, development, and poverty reduction. The
transition to a low carbon economy is potentially a powerful,
attractive, and sustainable growth story, marked by higher
resilience, more innovation, more livable cities, robust
agriculture, and stronger ecosystems.
Think about that. The fossil fuel industry and its phony front groups
have cooked up a phony hobgoblin of economic harm, which just so
happens to protect the industry they serve at the expense of everyone
else.
Here is a Nobel Prize-winning economist telling us that shifting to
renewable energy would actually help us grow the economy. The need for
this transition is also echoed in the warnings, which I have spoken
about and which Senator Warren just so eloquently spoke about, of a
carbon bubble and crash.
Why is it that the clean energy economy grows? The same reason the
economy grew when we went from horse and buggy to automobile or
landline to cell phones. The key word is ``innovation.'' As Professor
Stiglitz says, we get more innovation as we manage this transaction.
Renewable energy, electric cars, battery storage, carbon capture,
energy efficiency, low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels--these are
technologies of the future, promising millions of great jobs. The
question is whether these will be American technologies and American
jobs or whether China, Germany, Japan, and other countries will win the
transition to a low-carbon economy.
Growth will not just come from new jobs; it will come from lower
costs. Stiglitz notes this: ``Many energy efficiency technologies
actually have a negative cost to implement.'' Now, you have to be an
economist to use the phrase ``negative cost.'' Negative cost,
obviously, is ``economics-ese'' for ``that's a good thing.''
The reverse case is the Trump administration's recent decision to
freeze fuel economy standards for cars. That is a bad thing. It will
cost American consumers hundreds of billions of dollars more at the
pump. It is no surprise that all of that extra cost for consumers in
gas money goes to Big Oil, which has the Trump administration
obediently in its pocket.
Stiglitz's testimony estimates the total benefits to the U.S. economy
from shifting away from fossil energy sources at around $1 trillion by
2050--$1 trillion by 2050. As I said, a $1 trillion negative cost is a
good thing. It is a really good thing, and if we weren't completely in
tow to the fossil fuel industry around here, we would be striving for
it.
Stiglitz recommends the policies to get us to that low-carbon
economy. First, he says we must put a price on carbon. He testifies
that putting a price on carbon could be beneficial to the economy all
by itself. He says:
[[Page S5824]]
[A] carbon tax . . . could substitute for other more
distortionary taxes. If governments made such a substitution,
the aggregate cost of curtailing carbon emissions could be
even less than zero, providing net benefits to the economy.
Second, he testifies that we must end the enormous, gigantic
subsidies we grant to the fossil fuel industry. Here is what he says:
The full amount of post-tax subsidies in the U.S. [to the
fossil fuel industry] has been estimated at nearly $700
billion per year, more than half of the Federal government's
forecasted deficit for the next fiscal year. Eliminating all
fossil fuel subsidies (implicit and explicit, many of which
go to large corporations) could, therefore, both curtail
fossil-fuel production, through forcing companies to bear
more of the true costs of fossil-fuel production, and
substantially reduce our national deficit in one fell swoop.
For the record, Stiglitz adds that ``equity would also be improved
with corporations paying more and individuals, such as Youth Plaintiffs
and Affected Children, benefiting.''
Of course, around here, corporate interests get better service than
the American people, so that observation doesn't count for much, but
there it is.
There is one last bit of Stiglitz's testimony that is important. I
quote him again: ``The more time that passes, the more expensive it
becomes to address climate change.''
Time is not our friend. This doesn't get better or go away. Every day
we delay is a missed opportunity. Every day we delay bears a cost, and
we have been delaying--we are good at that--for decades.
James Hansen appeared before this body 30 years ago--three decades
ago--to sound the alarm about climate change in a hearing called by
Senator John Chafee. Stiglitz cites a 40-year-old report--four
decades--to President Carter that subsidies to the fossil fuel industry
were stifling competition from solar.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has jerked Congress's chain to
keep anything from happening. Even now, their mischief is visible in
the hobgoblin about economic harm.
By the way, it is not just Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph
Stiglitz who says that pricing carbon emissions would be a good thing.
Economists across the political spectrum agree. Just last month,
economic researchers at Columbia University found that even if you look
only at the pure economic effects, a carbon fee is a winner.
Here is a $50-per-ton carbon fee, and here is a $75-per-ton carbon
fee, and both show growth compared to the status quo in the economy.
You have to roll them back through the payroll tax, which is something
we can do, to see this added growth effect from a carbon fee.
Remember, this growth--that is only the tax effects. This doesn't
count the health benefits of a cleaner planet; this doesn't count the
environmental benefits of a healthier planet. Both are huge. They are
not even counted here. This is just the tax effects.
These carbon pricing ideas are a winner on their own, and it becomes
a win-win-win when you add the environmental and health benefits.
So who are we going to believe, the front groups paid by the fossil
fuel industry? If there were Olympic medals in having a conflict of
interest, these phonies would take the gold. Unfortunately, you would
have to hose off the medals platform afterward.
On the other side, you have actual experts, honest experts--the ones
cited by Senator Warren, the economists I have mentioned here today,
and many others--who all agree. They are all saying that we need to act
now. They are all telling us that failure to act puts us in harm's way
for serious economic disruption. They are all telling us that pricing
carbon and ending fossil fuel subsidies will actually be a boon to the
economy.
Our choice is clear. Going with the corrupt guys is not a good look,
not when the day of reckoning comes. And warnings are more and more
widespread and clear that a day of reckoning draws nigh.
So if you want, go with the oddballs and the fossil fuel flunkies,
not the Nobel Prize winners; go with the scripted disinformation, not
the sworn testimony; go with the industry protecting a $700 billion
subsidy, not the actual scientists; and good luck looking your
grandchildren in the eye.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to spend a
couple of minutes talking about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We know that the debate has been engaged now for a number of weeks
and that the American people are part of that debate. I have already
expressed my views about the process that led to his nomination. I have
very strong views about it. I think it was a corrupt bargain between at
least two--if not the only two--far-right organizations and the
administration to choose from a list of only 25 individuals to serve on
the Supreme Court. In other words, if you are not on the list of 25
chosen by those groups or at least certainly ratified by those groups,
you cannot be nominated to the Supreme Court.
But tonight I am here to talk about a different set of questions. One
is more specific and one is broader, but both are important. I will
deal with the broader question at some length, but I will raise the
more specific question first; that is, the question of a particular
aspect of the Judge's record.
I happen to serve as the ranking member of the Senate Special
Committee on Aging, and I am alarmed at some of the judge's opinions
regarding older Americans and Americans with disabilities. I will be
walking through some of those cases at a different time, but I have a
series of questions that I think are important to have answers to as
they relate to his views and the potential opinions he would write that
affect older Americans and individuals with disabilities.
Because there has been a failure so far to turn over records of his
tenure in the White House--documents that some believe number in the
millions of pages--it is very difficult to ascertain or even to
formulate questions that relate to just these two topics, among many,
the two topics being his views on Americans with disabilities and the
laws that protect Americans with disabilities and, of course, his views
on programs and policies that relate to older Americans.
Today I have written to Chairman Grassley, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, and Ranking Member Feinstein, to demand that the
Judiciary Committee obtain and share with me and my staff all documents
related to older adults and people with disabilities. The Judiciary
Committee is attempting to move forward with Judge Kavanaugh's hearing
before--before--we have seen and had a chance to review his entire
record. Without Judge Kavanaugh's full record to review and without all
of the documents being made available to the committee and, therefore,
to the Senate, no Senator can fulfill his or her constitutional duty to
provide meaningful advice and consent about this nominee for the
highest Court in the land and, I would argue, the most powerful--or at
least the most important--Court in the world.
This duty could not be more important than it is at this moment.
Yesterday, as so many Americans know, it was a very sad day for the
country and one of the saddest days in the history of our Republic for
two reasons. The President's former attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded
guilty to breaking campaign finance laws at the President's direction,
according to his statement under oath in open court--that statement of
Mr. Cohen.
Meanwhile, Paul Manafort, the President's campaign manager, was
convicted by a jury on eight counts of tax and bank fraud.
Why is that relevant to this discussion about the Supreme Court? I
think it is pretty simple. Serious crimes have been committed by close
associates of the President. That President has now nominated Judge
Kavanaugh to sit on our highest Court, and that particular nominee,
Judge Kavanaugh, has views on Executive power and the power of any
President to take action. These views must be thoroughly reviewed. That
takes not just a review of the record that we have now; I would argue
that to fully examine those views, we have to look at his whole record.
[[Page S5825]]
How can any Senator--how can even the Judiciary Committee--conduct
that kind of thorough review when we might have literally millions of
pages of documents that are not being made available to the Judiciary
Committee and, by extension, to the Senate itself? I don't know how we
can complete that kind of an inquiry just on those questions--questions
of the power of the President and questions on Executive power more
broadly.
So because of what happened yesterday, we are now in uncharted
waters, probably territory that very few Americans have ever walked
through. I don't want to make any historical comparisons because they
are never entirely accurate, but I think it is safe to say that we are
in uncharted territory. So under these circumstances, it is more
important than ever that our courts, up to and including the Supreme
Court, act as independent arbiters in our democracy.
Any Supreme Court nominee, of course, warrants close, careful, and
thorough scrutiny. In this case, this nominee, whose views on Executive
power I would argue are extreme, and a nominee who has questioned
whether the President can be subpoenaed--of course, that nominee, in
this context but even outside this context should be the subject of
thorough examination. And because of what happened yesterday, the
nominee should receive the most substantial, the toughest scrutiny on a
range of questions but, in particular, those that relate to Executive
power.
I will quote just a few lines from a 1998 Law Review article written
by Judge Kavanaugh. He said: ``Congress should give back to the
President the full power to act when he believes that a particular
independent counsel is `out to get him.' ''
He went on to say later: ``The President should have absolute
discretion . . . whether and when to appoint an independent counsel.''
So that is just one brief reference in one Law Review article. There
are other examples we could cite, obviously Executive power--the power
of the President generally but, in particular, the power of a President
in the context of an independent counsel, what we now call a special
counsel--being involved.
These questions are substantial. We know that Judge Kavanaugh, before
he was, in fact, Judge Kavanaugh, was a member of a prior
administration where he served both as White House Staff Secretary and
White House Counsel. Therein lies a lot of information in those
documents about his time there, when he assuredly would have expressed
opinions on a range of questions, maybe a series of statements or
evidence in the record about his views on Executive power, in addition
to what he may have said in a speech or in a Law Review article or
otherwise.
So I believe it would be an abrogation of our constitutional
responsibility to move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination without his
full--without his full--record set forth for the Judiciary Committee
before the hearing begins. And if there are millions of pages still to
review, we should give Judiciary Committee members the time to review
those documents, formulate questions, and prepare for the hearing.
There is no rule or no law that says this hearing has to begin the
day after Labor Day or even a few days after Labor Day. I would think
that the Senate would want to have the full record--or as close to the
full record as possible--before those hearings begin, especially
because we have a particularly urgent set of circumstances or set of
facts--in light of what happened yesterday with the two individuals in
two different courts of law--which could make as a live issue,
potentially, these questions of the exercise of Executive power,
especially because we have a nominee who has expressed views on those
issues. I don't think what I am outlining is in any way unreasonable.
Taking a few extra weeks to review that record should be the subject of
bipartisan support.
So I believe Judge Kavanaugh's full record must be made available for
review. I also believe the Senate must be given adequate opportunity to
review it, and I think because of the facts and circumstances that are
presented with this nominee, with this Presidency, and with this set of
facts, the stakes could not be higher. We don't want to be finding out
down the road in the midst of a confirmation hearing--or even after the
confirmation hearing or even after, potentially, a confirmation vote--
that there are documents in the record that were not brought to the
full light of scrutiny that have a bearing on his views that relate to
these fundamental issues of Executive power. If a legislative branch of
government, in this case the U.S. Senate and, in particular, the
Judiciary Committee--if a legislative branch of government in that
circumstance doesn't discharge its duty to obtain and to review and
then to formulate questions about issues so fundamental as Executive
power and the power of the President, especially in the context of a
special counsel investigation, I am not sure what the role of the
Senate would be in the absence of that kind of review.
So I think this is fundamental. It has nothing to do with a point of
view or a party or a position; this is fundamental to the process of
having a full review of the record.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________