[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.

                          ____________________