[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 159 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6324-S6330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
1111, Robert H. McMahon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 1111, the nomination of 
     Robert H. McMahon, of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary 
     of Defense.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, this is my first time to address this 
body. Senate tradition is for new Senators to observe, listen, and 
learn before delivering a maiden speech, but there is precedent, during 
matters of great importance and critical times for the future of our 
country, to make remarks prior to a maiden speech. I will reserve my 
maiden speech for a future date, but today I am compelled by duty to 
our country and the people of Mississippi to speak in strong and 
unyielding support for Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
  The Constitution entrusts the Senate with the duty to provide the 
President the advice and consent for a lifetime appointment on the U.S. 
Supreme Court. It is a serious responsibility, but the process has 
devolved into a purely political effort by those who want to keep Judge 
Kavanaugh off the Court by destroying his reputation and his character.
  I have had conversations with several colleagues who tell me they 
have never seen such chaos and hatred as we are witnessing in this 
confirmation process. The fact that accusations against Brett Kavanaugh 
were suspiciously withheld until the eleventh hour really is not 
surprising. We expected something, but we didn't know what it would be, 
and we never expected the opposition to stoop to this level.
  Let me articulate what is going on here.
  Judge Kavanaugh, who has gone through multiple background checks over 
the years, was unscathed by additional vetting, 31 hours of questioning 
under oath, and more than 1,200 written questions--all exceeding 
anything ever experienced by any Supreme Court nominee. When it became 
clear that Judge Kavanaugh had a clear path to confirmation, the 
opposition chose to introduce accusations of alleged misconduct that 
have yet to be backed by verified facts or any evidence. It seems that 
in their desperation, knowing he was about to be confirmed with no 
obstacle stopping him, they panicked. In the past 2 weeks, when was the 
last time you heard talk of federalism or philosophy of jurisprudence? 
They lost the fight on the issues. They had to try something else--
thus, these eleventh-hour accusations.
  Now, I want to be clear. My heart breaks for victims of assault and 
abuse. It is an issue that must never be taken lightly. That is why 
unproven accusations are so very unjust.
  Faced with these disturbing accusations, Judge Kavanaugh quickly and 
convincingly refuted them without mincing any words. Throughout this 
exhaustive process, he has been very straightforward in shooting down 
these allegations--all under the penalty of law. I believe Judge 
Kavanaugh when he says these humiliating events never happened--not 
three decades ago, not ever.
  It seems that opponents of Judge Kavanaugh are engaged in character 
assassination to destroy the reputation of a devoted public servant and 
a loving husband and father. I for one will not stand by and just watch 
this happen. It is an honor to serve in this body, and our debates 
should strengthen the integrity of this institution, which the American 
people have a right to expect.
  The confirmation process is not easy. It should be comprehensive, 
detailed, and allow nominees to prove their worthiness. It should not 
be malicious. It should not be intentionally destructive. It should not 
be a weapon to use against a qualified nominee whose life has been 
given in service to our country's laws, the judiciary, and the American 
people.
  Judge Kavanaugh is such a nominee. I have met him and reviewed his 
impeccable record of service and integrity. He is a disciple of the 
rule of law and judicial restraint. He is a champion of the 
Constitution. He believes, as I do, that all Americans are equal before 
the law and the courts.
  On behalf of all future nominees, I want to applaud Judge Kavanaugh 
for standing firm and not allowing these tactics to derail his process. 
It is time to bring Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to a vote on the 
floor of the Senate. He has earned my support. I encourage my 
colleagues to support him as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Land and Water Conservation Fund

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I have come down to the floor today to 
discuss a very important issue to Montanans and to many of my 
colleagues in the Senate, and that is the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, also known as LWCF. I am joined by friends and colleagues--in 
fact, by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, and the Senator 
from Colorado, Mr. Gardner--who know like me, firsthand, the importance 
of LWCF. Why we are here today is because in just a few short days--in 
fact, on September 30--this program is going to expire. Without any 
action from Congress, a program that is widely supported, provides more 
access to public lands, conserves our public landscapes, and--I think 
this is probably Senator Burr's favorite comment about LWCF--costs the 
taxpayers nothing--I bet you will hear that from him in a moment--is 
going to expire.
  Of the many benefits provided by LCWF, the most important one to 
Montanans is making public lands accessible. In fact, I brought a few 
maps of Montana to show some of the challenges we have.
  This map shows all the public lands in our State. Anything that is 
colored is a public land. That is Forest Service, BLM, national parks, 
wildlife refuges, and State trust land. As you can see, there is a lot 
of public land in Montana.
  Our public lands help to drive a $7 billion outdoor economy, create 
tens of thousands of jobs, and supply about $300 million in State and 
local tax revenues. As an avid outdoorsman, myself, I know firsthand 
the importance of our public lands. In fact, in August, back home in 
Montana, my wife and I did a 25-mile backpack in the Beartooth 
Wilderness, fly fishing at lakes above 10,000 feet. That is my idea of 
a great weekend in Montana. But public lands out of public reach 
benefit no one.
  This next map shows a portion of the eastern side of our State. In 
Montana, much of our public land is checkerboarded. You can see it a 
little better here because these checkerboards are sectioned. There are 
640 acres in square miles. This means that each one of those yellow 
squares are inaccessible in many cases to Montanans.
  This is BLM-owned public land, but despite being owned by the Federal 
Government, it cannot be accessed by the public. In fact, a recent 
study by the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and onXmaps, a 
great Montana tech company, found that there are 1.52 million acres in 
Federal land in Montana alone that are inaccessible. I have the onXmaps 
app on my phone. If you are a hunter, fisherman, or outdoorsman in 
Montana, you oftentimes will have that app because it tells exactly 
where you are and where the lands are public and where the lands are 
private.
  Let me put this in context about the inaccessibility of our lands. In 
Montana, we have more inaccessible public lands to the people than the 
entire State of Rhode Island--about the size of Delaware--all of which 
Montanans

[[Page S6325]]

are locked out of, and public land that is only open to a select few or 
to none at all is really not public at all.
  The next map shows the western side of Montana, where we see the same 
problem on Forest Service land. If you look here, you can see a piece 
of checkerboarded land. We are using LWCF dollars to expand public 
access.
  In fact, the Beavertail to Bearmouth corridor is currently the 
highest ranking Forest Service LWCF project. This project unlocks 
approximately 1,900 acres of currently inaccessible public land.
  As you can see on this map, there are whole sections that Montanans 
are locked out of. This project--like many LWCF projects--ensures that 
our booming outdoor economy can continue to grow. It allows hunters, 
anglers, and other sportsmen to have access to their public land. 
However, projects like this are in danger if we don't reauthorize LWCF. 
Luckily, very fortunately, there has been some good work done. 
Recently, the House Committee on Natural Resources passed a bill to 
permanently reauthorize LWCF.
  I thank Congressman Gianforte from Montana, on the House side, and 
Chairman Bishop of Utah for getting that pushed through. The House has 
done their job. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
has also passed legislation to reauthorize LWCF. We now need to get 
this through the full House and the Senate, and we need to do that now.
  LWCF is a program that maximizes the value of public lands to 
taxpayers, it boosts our economy, and it has strong bipartisan support. 
Lord help us, we know we need some bipartisan bills right now in this 
city. That is why I stand here today to urge my colleagues to act and 
reauthorize this critical program.
  Montana is not the only State that has greatly benefited from LWCF. I 
want to turn it over to my colleague--truly one of the warriors in 
LWCF--the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Daines and Gardner 
for their critical support for backing this program. If there is only 
one takeaway anybody has from anything I say today, let it be this: 
This costs zero in taxpayer money, zero. For those who are budget 
hawks, it is a great bill.
  In June, the three of us, along with some of our colleagues, convened 
in front of the Capitol to commemorate the 100th day until LWCF 
expires. It is unfortunate we are here today, less than a week away 
from its expiration, with no extension of this program.
  I believe we ultimately will win this fight because our colleagues 
know it is the right thing to do. As Senator Daines pointed out, the 
majority of the House of Representatives and the majority of the U.S. 
Senate is supportive of this. It costs zero in taxpayer money, and it 
provides so much at the State and Federal level.
  I appreciate my colleague's comments on public access. That is 
usually the focus of my LWCF monologues. Not a lot of my constituents 
are thinking about outdoor recreation right now; they are dealing with 
Hurricane Florence and her aftermath. As you all know, North Carolina 
recently experienced a hurricane of epic proportion. Flooding has 
reached record levels. People's homes and businesses are in disrepair, 
and flood levels continue today at dangerously high levels in some 
areas.
  Obviously, much of this is unavoidable. If we ensure our 
infrastructure is well positioned to deal with major influxes of water, 
we can minimize the devastating impact we saw from Florence. I am not 
referring necessarily just to bridges, dams, and roads; I am talking 
about our natural infrastructure.
  If we strategically create green spaces in our cities and in our 
river basins, we can mitigate some of the flooding. Guess what. LWCF 
dollars help us do that. A great example is the South Cape May Meadows 
Preserve and the surrounding Cape May National Wildlife Refuge which 
LWCF helped create in New Jersey.
  The State of New Jersey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Nature 
Conservancy have worked together to restore wetlands, which now include 
engineered structures, as well as natural features like marshes, dunes, 
and wetlands.
  This wetland area has since withstood several major storms, including 
Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. The wetland was positioned in such a way 
that it was able to absorb enough of the impact and water in order to 
protect many of the surrounding communities.
  In 2016, a study by the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with a 
risk modeler for the insurance industry, showed that the marsh wetlands 
saved over $650 million in property damages during Hurricane Sandy 
alone and reduced annual property losses by nearly 20 percent in Ocean 
County, NJ.
  This isn't just about protecting lands and public access; it is about 
those things we can do that provide a better community--a lower cost of 
insurance, a better way to mitigate some of nature's challenges.
  Did I mention it is also a bird sanctuary? Did I mention it is a 
recreational destination? It also serves as critical infrastructure in 
times of disaster, like the one my State is dealing with today.
  More and more, our civil engineers are incorporating these pieces of 
green infrastructure. At first glance, one would naturally think they 
are for aesthetic reasons.
  In Charlotte, a series of greenways wind through the city. One of the 
greenways, Four Mile Creek Greenway, used an LWCF grant to develop the 
land into a multipurpose area, rather than actual acquisition of the 
land. It has trails winding through it. It is home to hundreds of 
different animal species. Yet it is also used for natural drainage. It 
absorbs water. It slows down the water with the vegetation and the 
winding creekbeds.
  Our cunning civil engineers have us thinking they are building a 
park, but what they are really building is a flood mitigation program. 
As you can see, LWCF is used for projects in our cities and our rural 
areas--big and small projects. Ultimately, the biggest filters of water 
in North Carolina are our own natural forest and the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park.
  Healthy forests in these public lands help us to slow the flow of 
water, and we need those units to have the integrity so they can do 
their job of feeding healthy river systems that are much less prone to 
that flooding.
  In conjunction with traditionally engineered structures, preserving 
strategic pieces of land in their natural state or restoring others to 
better take in water saves us money in the long run. Ocean County, NJ, 
proved that.
  I can go on for hours. I can go on with hundreds of examples. There 
aren't a lot of facts I can give you about the program that I haven't 
already laid out in the past opportunities to be on the floor, but I 
think it is useful to end my speech by restating the original mission 
laid out 54 years ago when LWCF was created--authorized for 25 years, 
reauthorized for 25 years, and then only reauthorized for 5.
  What do we want? We want permanent reauthorization. It is a program 
that has proven to be successful, regardless of your political views, a 
program that uses zero in taxpayer money, a program that produces 
benefits to every State in America that started with this mission 
statement:

       To assist in preserving, developing, and assuring 
     accessibility to all citizens of the United States of America 
     of present and future generations . . . such quality and 
     quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available 
     and are necessary and desirable . . . to strengthen the 
     health and vitality of the citizens of the United States by 
     (1) providing funds for and authorizing Federal assistance to 
     the States in planning, acquisition, and development of 
     needed land and water areas and facilities and (2) providing 
     funds for the Federal acquisition and development of certain 
     lands and other areas.

  I am not sure you can sum up any differently what the definition of a 
good program is, a successful program. It is not just in the mission 
statement; it is in the examples of what over those 54 years we have 
accomplished. There are not many things I can walk away from and 
believe that my grandchildren and my great grandchildren will be 
positively impacted by, but I can assure my colleagues of this: 
Permanent reauthorization of LWCF is one of those things. I am 
committed, along with my colleagues, to make sure there is no temporary 
reauthorization; there is a permanent reauthorization. We have met the 
burden of proof as to why this should never go away and why the 
American people support it in overwhelming numbers.

[[Page S6326]]

  I am grateful to my colleagues for their support and their time to be 
on the floor today.
  I yield back to Senator Daines.
  Mr. DAINES. I thank Senator Burr.
  I think it also demonstrates the diversity, geographically, that we 
have a Senator from North Carolina, a Senator from Montana, and a 
Senator from Colorado. It doesn't matter if you are a Western State or 
a State on the East side of our Nation. I knew Senator Burr would talk 
about the fact that it costs the taxpayer nothing. I hear that all the 
time. Members care deeply about responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
dollars. It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything.
  There is another word I always hear from Senator Burr; that is, it is 
``permanent'' reauthorization. This is no longer an experiment. This is 
proven. This is why we need to move away from this temporary 
reauthorization and make it permanent.
  I am pleased to have another colleague of mine from Colorado, Senator 
Gardner, join me now. We would be border States if it weren't for the 
State of Wyoming. Senator Gardner is in the southern part of the 
Rockies, a beautiful State. I am grateful to have the Senator as one of 
the key champions in the U.S. Senate of LWCF, Mr. Gardner.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to be here 
to talk with my colleagues about the importance of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I am pleased to be here.
  Over the past several months, the press conference Senator Burr 
referred to marking 100 days until the expiration of Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--we have since come to the floor offering unanimous 
consent agreements. We have introduced legislation. We fought for 
amendments to make sure we extend not just temporarily, not just for a 
year or two but to make sure we fight for the permanent reauthorization 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I was struck by the words Senator Burr said, in particular, about the 
suffering in his home State of North Carolina and the aftermath of 
Hurricane Florence. I was reminded of a quote that Enos Mills, one of 
the Founding Fathers of Rocky Mountain National Park, said about our 
national places and spaces. I think you can apply this to public lands 
everywhere, the public parks, national parks, forests, you name it. He 
said: ``Within national parks is room--glorious room--room in which to 
find ourselves, in which to think and hope, to dream and plan, to rest 
and resolve.''
  That is the importance of our public lands across the West, across 
the East, and everywhere in this country--from corner to corner--as we 
fight to preserve our most sacred places.
  Senator Daines, there have been valiant efforts in Montana to 
preserve our public lands in both of our States--public land States. In 
Colorado, if you add in the State and Federal public lands, you are 
looking at nearly half the State of Colorado and of course the numbers 
you laid out earlier. These are important management issues, important 
issues to resolve. Then, once in a while, there is an opportunity ahead 
of us to preserve a parcel of land, a portion of forests for a 
recreational opportunity for future generations. We use the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund to do just that.
  Teddy Roosevelt said: ``There is a delight in the hardy life of the 
open.'' He went on to say: ``The nation behaves well if it treats the 
natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next 
generation increased; and not impaired in value.''
  That is what the Land and Water Conservation Fund allowed us to do. I 
want to show you a picture of an incredible, glorious space in Colorado 
I visited a few weeks back. This is the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
National Park. It is pretty impressive. I can tell you, if you are able 
to go down next to the Gunnison River and enjoy that opportunity to be 
alone, to be in that space, you indeed will live up to Enos Mills' 
quote, where you will be able to find that time to think and hope, to 
dream and plan, to rest, and to resolve.
  If you look at this canyon, you will notice some of the uplands, the 
flats, the rim of the canyon. You would assume that would have been a 
part of the national park. When they created the Black Canyon of the 
Gunnison National Park, there was a private holding, and you can see 
part of it right here.
  Imagine the risk to this great national park, this great public place 
that could be posed by somebody who decided they wanted to develop that 
space, and all of a sudden that great natural wonder, the great open 
space this presents to not just the people of Colorado but truly people 
around the world would be gone, would be blemished, would be impaired.
  We worked with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In bipartisan 
fashion, Senator Bennet, myself, and Congressman Tipton have had great 
bipartisan support from within the Colorado congressional delegation--
Congressman Lamborn, Congressman Tipton, Congressman Coffman. They all 
strongly support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In this case--
the Western Slope of Colorado--Congressman Tipton, Senator Bennet, and 
I worked with the agencies in Colorado, which do so much great work, to 
make a purchase of this private land using Land and Water Conservation 
Fund dollars. In this case, it was the conservation fund out of 
Boulder, CO.
  If we go to the next chart, you can see where that land was. This is 
Bruce Noble, the superintendent of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
National Park, and he is pointing--that river is just right down here, 
and this is the land the Land and Water Conservation Fund helped to 
purchase so that this asset will be preserved for future generations. 
Not just for 5 years or 10 years, but for as long as this great and 
hallowed Nation exists, you will be able to come to the Black Canyon of 
the Gunnison National Park and be at one with your thoughts, your self, 
and you will have the opportunity to think, to resolve, to plan, to 
hope. That is the respite that this brings to all of us, because we are 
better people knowing that some of our most wild and natural places 
exist in truly wild and natural spaces.
  To the leadership of the Conservation Fund, Christine Quinlan, and 
the other folks who have worked with the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, thank you for making this possible. This is just one of many 
examples in Colorado. In fact, over $268 million has been appropriated 
to Colorado through the Land and Water Conservation Fund to make 
purchases such as this in a recreation economy in Colorado that is 
responsible for over 230,000 jobs in the State of Colorado alone and an 
outdoor economy that is nearly $10 billion in wages and salaries and $2 
billion in State and local tax revenues--a nearly $30 billion outdoor 
economy overall in Colorado. That is what the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is able to be a part of.
  So this isn't just about protecting our open spaces. It is not just 
about protecting these great, sacred lands that we have. It is also 
about a thriving economy in Colorado, in Montana, and in North 
Carolina, and the opportunities we have to drive those outdoor 
economies with hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in 
revenue. This Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, passed legislation to 
promote that outdoor economy, but it is all related back to this crown 
jewel of our conservation programs, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
  We are just days away from seeing the clock tick 1 day beyond what it 
should and what we should allow. And I think one of the reasons we are 
here is that we have heard the frustration of our voters back in 
Colorado, North Carolina, and Montana who get frustrated with 
Washington and are probably wondering why something that everybody 
agrees with can take so long to get done. Washington seems to be the 
only place where the more people agree with it, the longer it takes to 
happen. So let's fix that.
  I truly am grateful to Senator Burr for the times he has come to the 
floor with Democrats and Republicans alike to champion this. I thank 
Senator Daines for his leadership. We have days left. We have hours 
remaining. We should work with every moment to make sure we get this 
reauthorization--permanent reauthorization, full funding--across the 
finish line. It is an honor to be with my colleagues to fight for this 
great program.
  Mr. DAINES. Senator Gardner, thank you. I thank Senator Burr as

[[Page S6327]]

well. I think this is something that, for us, is more than a policy 
discussion. You can see the passion from each Member here. It is a way 
of life.
  I come from a State--Montana--where a mom or a dad or a grandpa or 
grandma can still load up a son or daughter or granddaughter or 
grandson in the pickup and go down to Walmart and buy an elk tag or a 
deer tag over the counter and then head out and have access to public 
lands to hunt and to fish. That makes America unique. You don't see 
that in most places around the world, and that sets us apart as a 
unique people.
  Mr. BURR. Will the Senator from Montana yield?
  Mr. DAINES. Yes.
  Mr. BURR. I want to drive home what Senator Gardner said. This is not 
the first time we have been here. Almost 100 days ago, after that event 
we had outside, we came inside and moved to reauthorize the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  I just pulled out my drawer and found three instances. All of those 
speeches start like this:
  ``At this time, we are only 66 days until September 30.''
  ``At this time today, we are only 45 days.''
  ``Today, we are only 38 days until expiration.''
  We continue to drive this with our colleagues. Why? Because the 
American public supports this program so much and because this is 
effective and impactful in every community of every State in the 
country. I know my colleagues agree with me. We are going to be 
relentless in how many times we come to the floor.
  Sometimes, Senator Gardner, when you have been here as long as I 
have, you learn that sometimes you have to wear down the people who 
might find a reason to disagree with you. But, you know, nobody has 
disagreed with us because it costs money. Nobody has disagreed with us 
because it wasn't effective. Maybe they disagree with us because they 
haven't utilized it the way so many other Americans have. I can't think 
of a better legacy we can leave for generations to come than to 
permanently reauthorize that, and I believe it will happen this 
calendar year.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Senator Burr.
  I will tell you why that permanent reauthorization is important in 
places like Montana, Colorado, and North Carolina. It is because it 
takes time to put together some of these consolidations of checkerboard 
lands to make this all work.
  Here is an example of that right here. This is a project that was 
executed. And you see we are not playing checkers here; this is the way 
the land management works oftentimes out West. So to make all that 
happen, to get the parties--the State, the Federal Government, and a 
private landowner--together here, sometimes takes years.
  What we don't need to have is the Federal Government back here--
Congress--providing uncertainty about whether we are going to fund a 
process that oftentimes takes years, getting the landowners, the State, 
and the Feds together to execute a consolidation that gives the public 
access to those public lands. That is why permanent reauthorization is 
so important, to take that off the table. There are enough challenges 
already with the LWCF and with trying to make these transactions work 
without having Congress get in the way.
  I thank you, Senator Burr, for your passion, for your steadfast 
commitment to the permanent reauthorization. And keep reminding us that 
it costs the taxpayers nothing. I think it is a pretty good value.
  So, again, I want to thank both my colleagues here. They have been 
strong leaders on this issue. We are going to keep fighting. As Senator 
Burr just ticked down from 100 days, now we are down to 4 days. We are 
going to fight for this every opportunity we have. We all urge our 
colleagues to listen to the stories you heard today, listen to your 
constituents, and join us and finally reauthorize to save LWCF.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Oregon.


                        Tribute to Jodi Niehoff

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize a 
wonderful member of my team who, after 9 years, will be leaving us at 
the end of this week.
  For more than 9 years, Jodi Niehoff has been the heart and soul of 
our operation. She has been our administration and correspondence 
manager. She has been our intern coordinator and our unofficial planner 
for party events celebrating legislative victories or comings and 
goings of staff or birthdays. She has been the hostess and MC of our 
annual holiday gift swap and so many other things, adding to the esprit 
de corps of our team.
  My team has pulled together a few stats, and these statistics 
indicate just some of the work she has done over these years during 
which I have had the privilege to work with her.
  She has been a staunch believer not just in communicating with 
constituents but doing so quickly and in a meaningful and heartfelt 
way. Under her leadership, we have worked to have a substantive 
response to every single letter that comes into our office and try to 
get out that response, whenever possible, on the same day or the next 
day and when more research is needed, to do so within a few days. It is 
a huge challenge because so many people now are communicating via 
email, and we have weeks in which we can receive 10,000 or 12,000 or 
14,000 letters. So in the course of responding to all those diverse 
issues that constituents have raised, Jodi has guided our team in 
producing 5,774 unique letters that are now in our constituent 
correspondence library. That averages out to nearly two letters a day 
365 days a year for more than 9 years.
  During her time on our team, she has mentored 227 interns, and 14 of 
those interns have gone on to join our team as staff members. So 
helping to enable them to have a significant experience here on Capitol 
Hill is a real contribution to the public.
  I first came here as an intern--a summer intern for Senator Mark 
Hatfield from Oregon--and at that time, you only had a few interns. You 
didn't have that much mail. There were three of us over the course of 
the summer. I was the last to arrive, so it was my job to come in 
early, run all the letters--of course they were all paper letters--run 
the envelopes through the cutter, take out the sheets of information, 
the letters, and stack them into one of four stacks for the different 
correspondence.
  Well, that now sounds like such a simple task compared to that which 
Jodi has guided with more than 200 interns and more than 5,000--almost 
6,000--unique letters being drafted to respond.
  Thank you so much. Jodi, you will be dearly missed by everybody here 
in Washington, DC, who has had the pleasure to know you, to work 
alongside with you, to partner with you over nearly a decade. I wish 
you all the best as you head back home to Minnesota to begin the next 
chapter of your life and the next chapter of your family's life. I know 
that the next chapter will be one in which a new set of individuals 
will have the pleasure, the delight, to be able to work with you.
  We invite you back here anytime. We wish you and your family all the 
best. Thank you, Jodi, for your service to our team and your service to 
our Nation.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. President, today I filed a lawsuit related to a violation of the 
separation of powers.
  Our Constitution lays out a very clear framework in which the 
President of the United States nominates and the Senate proceeds to 
review the record of an individual in order to determine if that 
individual is of fit character to serve. This strategy came as our 
Founders struggled with how to enable staff to fill key positions in 
the executive branch and key positions in the judiciary, and it is 
something that Hamilton wrote about extensively in his Federalist 
Papers.
  No. 76 was written in 1788 as a letter to the people of the State of 
New York. In it, he addressed this separation of powers at length. He 
said that the Founders had considered giving the assembly--that is a 
large group--the ability to choose those who would fill posts in the 
executive branch as a check and balance to the President but that they 
had considered the fact that Senators would probably horse trade, that 
one Senator from one State would want their friend in one position and 
another Senator from another State

[[Page S6328]]

would want a different person, and that that horse trading would not 
produce the best set of individuals to populate the executive branch or 
to serve as judges. So they came to rest on the idea of having one 
individual--the President--nominate individuals to serve.
  Here is a short piece of his longer discussion. He said: ``The sole 
and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier 
sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this 
account, feel himself under stronger obligations and more interested to 
investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be 
filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the 
fairest pretensions to them.''
  He goes on to applaud the many merits of having one individual bear 
the burden of making these nominations.
  But then, of course, it is a nomination; it is not an appointment. 
And to be appointed, the Senate must confirm.
  He addresses this question of the role of the Senate. Alexander 
Hamilton, writing to explain the action and the design of the 
Constitution in his letter to the people of New York in 1788, says:

       To what purpose then require the co-operation of the 
     Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence 
     would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent 
     operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of 
     favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to 
     prevent the appointment of unfit characters. . . .

  He goes on to say that a President might be influenced by favoritism 
to people in his own State or favoritism to people in his family or 
family connections or favoritism because he had a friendship or a 
pursuit of popularity triumphing over professional skills. So for all 
of these reasons, the Senate process exists to review the record of the 
individual and to determine, as Hamilton put it: Is that individual a 
fit character or an unfit character?
  Now, we all in the Senate took an oath of office to uphold the 
Constitution, and, certainly, that means defending and exercising our 
responsibility under the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. 
We cannot interfere in the ability of the President to nominate. That 
is the President's responsibility. We can give our suggestions, but in 
the end, whatever the President says in regard to an office, whatever 
person the President identifies, that is the nominee, and we cannot 
interfere with that. But so, too, then, the President cannot interfere 
in the exercise of the Senate in reviewing the record of the 
individual. Certainly, the President can share his or her insights on 
the individual and his or her encouragement to speed up the process but 
cannot interfere in the underlying exercise of reviewing the record.
  But here we are in this extraordinary moment where the President of 
the United States has crossed the boundary between the separation of 
powers and has proceeded to interfere with the deliberations of the 
Senate, and he has done so not once and not twice but at least on three 
significant occasions. I will proceed to share those occasions.
  The first was the President's team intervening to stop the Senate 
from accessing Nominee Kavanaugh's records when he served as Staff 
Secretary to President George W. Bush.
  Senator Leahy, the longest serving Member of the Senate and a 
longtime member of the Judiciary Committee notes in a letter that the 
committee has a ``longstanding, bipartisan expectation . . . that any 
materials produced while a nominee was a public servant that could shed 
light on his or her views, thinking, or temperament, that are not 
privileged, should be subject to public scrutiny and carefully 
considered by the Senate prior to confirmation.''
  Now, this was a view that was a bipartisan view. It is a view that 
was expressed by a senior member of the Judiciary Committee--a 
Republican Member. That individual, Senator Cornyn, proceeded to note 
that the documents that Judge Kavanaugh had ``generated . . . authored 
. . . or contributed to'' during his tenure as White House Staff 
Secretary should be conveyed to the Committee. This ``just seems like 
common sense,'' he added.
  In other words, it just seems fundamental to our responsibility here 
in the Senate to review the record of Judge Kavanaugh, but just days 
after the senior Republican member of the Judiciary Committee expressed 
those sentiments, Republican Senators were summoned to the White House 
by the White House Counsel, Donald McGahn, and immediately following 
that summoning and those instructions--those directions from the White 
House--suddenly, Senators were being denied the opportunity to see 
those documents. In fact, it went so far as the chair of the Committee 
proceeding not to ask for the documents after this direction from the 
White House. So, certainly, that intervention did directly compromise 
our ability as Senators to review the record of the nominee and, 
therefore, violated the separation of powers and violated each of our 
abilities to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.
  The second occasion is that Defendant William Burck, who has a series 
of close connections to the White House, proceeded to exercise the 
power of executive privilege on behalf of the President to deny the 
Senate access to 100,000 pages of White House Counsel documents. What 
did this individual say when he was exercising this power of censoring 
the documents that would be obtained by the Senate? He said: ``The 
White House . . . has directed that we not provide these documents. . . 
.''
  That is a direct interference in the advice and consent deliberations 
of the Senate, and all of us together--Democrats and Republicans, 
northern Senators and southern Senators, eastern coast, western coast, 
heartland--should defend our responsibility under the Constitution to 
provide advice and consent, which means the ability to review the 
record of the nominee.
  Then there is a third occasion where Defendant Burck proceeded to 
label documents being presented to the Senate as ``committee 
confidential.'' In fact, the Committee consulted with him during the 
process to see what the extent of this was and why they were done.
  There is no index that provides information to the Senate on why so 
many documents were blocked by Burck from ever getting to us. That log 
or that index doesn't exist saying: Yes, we looked at this, document 
and here is why executive power prevails. There is no record or log for 
why more than 141,000 pages of documents were labeled ``committee 
confidential,'' preventing Senators from proceeding to talk about the 
contents, to have the contents examined by experts, to have the 
contents examined by the public, to take feedback from the citizens of 
the United States, to have staff be able to look at these documents and 
to be able to review them, and to be able to get feedback on them to 
fulfill our responsibility as Senators to examine the record of the 
nominee.
  Thus we are in uncharted territory. Never before have we seen this 
direct, substantial, and extensive intervention by the President in 
violation of the separation of powers under the advice and consent 
clause of the Constitution. Thus, it is important that we ask for 
judicial intervention.
  There is no more important document to us than the Constitution--our 
``we the people'' Constitution--of the United States of America. We 
will be failing if we do not aggressively pursue our responsibility to 
review the record of a nominee. So let us do that. Let us ask the 
courts for intervention to ensure that we have access to this record.
  We have had over the past few days new information regarding the 
nominee--new information from women who have shared their difficult, 
difficult experiences. What would be the appropriate conduct here in 
the Senate? It would be for the FBI to investigate--not a criminal 
investigation but a background investigation. That was accorded to 
Anita Hill in 1991, a reopening of the background investigation to get 
the facts.
  How is it that a Senate and a President that could support the proper 
role of the FBI in 1991 will not stand up today for fairness for women 
who are coming forward?
  Why is it that the nominee, steeped in the law, who has said he wants 
a fair hearing--he wants a fair hearing--does not demand an FBI 
investigation so it is fair to him and fair to these three women--Dr. 
Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick--who are coming forward? They 
are being treated very poorly by this institution. They are being 
treated as if they are a problem,

[[Page S6329]]

when they are, in fact, courageous Americans helping us to do our 
advice and consent responsibility to understand the record of the 
individual and whether the individual is fit or unfit.
  To those who say that, well, these might not be true, wouldn't you be 
the first, then, to stand up and say that the FBI should reopen the FBI 
investigation and that nothing should go forward until the President 
authorizes that? If you want fairness, you want facts.
  Here we are. Not only are we failing the test of 1991 in terms of the 
FBI investigation, but we are failing the test in terms of the 
witnesses. In 1991, numerous corroborating witnesses came forward to 
share and expand the dimensions of the events under consideration with 
Anita Hill. Now the Judiciary Committee is saying that we are only 
going to allow a ``he says, she says'' dynamic. This is absolutely 
unfair to the women who have come forward.
  Now the Judiciary Committee is saying they are going to bring an 
individual to prosecute, as if this is a trial of the woman that is 
coming forward. How wrong is that to try to turn this into a trial? If 
you want a trial, well, then, shouldn't you have the FBI investigate 
and get the facts? It shouldn't be a trial. We should be listening 
carefully, and we should be allowing fairness to both, those with 
corroborating information and, certainly, for the nominee, as well as 
those who are sharing their experiences from the past about the 
nominee. Give transparency and opportunity to both but not this farce 
of a hearing planned by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
  We should be able to do so much better. We have had decades of 
experience since 1991, since we went through a parallel situation of 
allegations regarding personal conduct. How is it that now, 27 years 
later, we are doing so much worse in respecting women coming forward to 
share their stories. Why are we doing a worse job of respecting 
dignity, a worse process in terms of listening to facts, a worse 
process in terms of trying to turn it into a trial of a courageous 
woman who came forward to share her experiences?
  Well, I have never felt so burdened by the misconduct of this Chamber 
as I feel right now. Let's stand up for decency and dignity and honor 
those who have come forward, respect them, listen to them, and explore 
the stories and the experiences they share so that their voices can be 
fairly heard before this body.
  Let us not let the President of the United States trample all over 
the Constitution by violating the separation of powers and blocking our 
Chamber from receiving the documents necessary to review the record of 
the nominee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Washington.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to join the 
voices of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--in making sure this 
process that is going to continue to play out over the next several 
days is a fair one.
  I will say to people right now that I am not for Judge Kavanaugh. I 
don't believe that his decisions and his views are in the mainstream of 
judicial opinion in the United States of America. I believe that not 
just about a woman's right to choose. I believe that not just about his 
decision on net neutrality. I definitely believe that about his 
decision on executive branch power.
  My views are known. I would expound on them if I thought that is what 
we are here to debate today, and maybe that will happen in the future. 
But I am here this afternoon to ask my colleagues to think about this 
issue of sexual assault in a new way. It is not a new way that you have 
never thought of before, but a way that says it is time for us to slow 
down and have a nonpartisan investigation into the accusations that 
have been made by three women.
  The reason that is so important is that in the last several days 
there have been comments that she is mixed up or confused or can't 
remember. I will tell you this: I guarantee you that any woman in the 
United States of America who has been assaulted remembers that she was 
assaulted. She may not remember exactly what the person was wearing, 
and she may not remember every person who was there, but I guarantee 
you it is seared into her mind, into her heart, and into her soul that 
she has been assaulted.
  The question before us in the U.S. Senate is, Are we going to take 
seriously the process and not rush it to a conclusion and not join the 
ranks of other institutions that have swept allegations under the rug?
  We all know where the Catholic Church is today, with information and 
documentation of accusations where people decided that, no, those 
couldn't be true; no, we don't have to listen; no, we can do something 
about it.
  When I think about the fact that at least 332 victims were abused by 
one person in the gymnastics program at Michigan State and people said 
``We don't have to pay attention to that,'' when I think about what 
happened at Penn State to young boys that people deny, that this 
couldn't be what is happening with Jerry Sandusky--it couldn't possibly 
be happening--I know that this is a cultural problem.
  I have heard statistics that cite that anywhere from 20 percent of 
women in the United States of America have faced sexual abuse to a 
website by the Centers for Disease Control that says it is one in three 
women. One in three women in the United States of America has faced 
sexual assault or abuse, and we don't think it is a crisis? I am pretty 
sure there are more women in the United States of America who have been 
the victims of sexual assault than of the opioid crisis, yet we call 
that a crisis. What are we doing to make sure we are not like other 
institutions that have not fully addressed this issue?
  We do not want to be the ones who rush through a process that 
demonstrates that the vote on the Supreme Court is more important than 
getting the truth. We need a nonpartisan investigation into the facts 
of these allegations against this Supreme Court nominee.
  When I think of the tragedy that faces Native American women, it 
breaks my heart. Over 50 percent of Native American women have faced 
sexual assault and abuse--50 percent. How is that not a crisis?
  So my colleagues, I know, do not think they are doing damage. They 
think they are sticking up for a nominee. They think they are sticking 
up for somebody that their team--their bench--pulled out of the ranks 
of their party or their backgrounds suggest that he should be the 
nominee. I understand their desire. But the desire today has to be that 
we do not make the same mistakes as other institutions, that we pay 
attention to these things and we take them seriously.
  I implore my colleagues to do so. Why? It is because every victim in 
the United States of America who thinks that you are not giving these 
accusations their due is reoffended in the belief that society does not 
take this crisis seriously.
  So I implore my colleagues: I know you think you are playing on a 
political scorecard to get something done for your party, but please 
make sure we have a thorough, nonpartisan investigation into these 
accusations so that we can tell victims of sexual assault in the United 
States of America that we treat these accusations seriously. We did our 
job. There is no rush, but for the actual facts that we can move 
forward on.
  I know we can have more conversations about this. I know we can, and 
we should. We should. We had these conversations during the debate on 
the Violence Against Women Act, and we made sure that Native American 
women are covered under that law--a tricky problem in the Federal law 
that made a gap even worse by not having the aid and support--and now, 
with Federal help and support with Indian trial courts, we have created 
a better system to bring those perpetrators of those crimes to justice.
  But we can, as an institution, also come to terms that this is a 
cultural problem in the United States of America, and we too must do 
our part. We must help. We must not keep reinjuring people by saying 
that we are not going to take the time to find the truth.
  So I implore my colleagues, please--and for those of you who have 
spoken out, like my colleague from Arizona: Thank you. Thank you for 
helping us get to the truth in this matter. Thank you for standing up 
for women, for men, for Indian Country, and those who have faced this 
abuse. Let's make

[[Page S6330]]

sure that this institution moves in a serious but deliberate and 
cautious path and does not spend its time tomorrow prosecuting a woman 
but listening to the facts and information that she gives.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, over the past weeks, we have been reminded 
yet again why it is so hard for survivors of sexual assault to come 
forward. For far too long, women who bravely share their stories of 
sexual assault have been attacked, diminished, and marginalized, and I 
am sad to say that includes by some of my fellow Senators.
  In some respects, we have seen remarkable progress since the ``me 
too.'' movement began roughly 1 year ago. More women have felt 
empowered and supported to speak out, and our society has begun to 
grapple with the horrific and widespread prevalence of sexual 
harassment and assault, especially in the workplace.
  But, sadly, these past weeks have been a reminder that in many ways 
we are still stuck in 1991; 1991, of course, was when Anita Hill 
courageously testified before the Senate, sharing allegations of sexual 
harassment by then-nominee to the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas. Women 
and men across the country watched in horror as Dr. Hill was attacked 
and disrespected by the men of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Yet, here we are, 27 years later, and Senate Republican leadership 
has made clear that they will do everything they can to ram Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination through. They have come up with a process that 
is even worse, even more disrespectful and disheartening to survivors 
than the one we saw in 1991.
  In 1991, the FBI investigated allegations of sexual assault against 
Mr. Thomas. The hearings stretched on for multiple days, and some 
corroborating witnesses were allowed to testify.
  In 2018, Republican leadership has indicated that none of those 
things will be allowed to happen--none of them. They have simply 
scheduled a check-the-box hearing, rejecting calls to ask the FBI to 
reopen its background investigation, refusing to allow other witnesses 
or evidence to be heard, and limiting the questioning from Senators.
  Lawyers for Dr. Ford announced that they have submitted sworn 
affidavits to the Senate Judiciary Committee from four individuals whom 
she shared these allegations with well before President Trump nominated 
Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Yet, incredibly, not a single one 
of these corroborating witnesses will be called to testify before the 
committee, nor will the witness that Dr. Ford alleges was in the room 
while she was assaulted, and the FBI will not be asked to speak with 
these or any other witnesses either.
  This process isn't a serious attempt to get to the truth. It is a 
complete sham, and some of my colleagues are hardly even trying to hide 
the fact that this is not a serious investigation, as they pledge that 
these credible allegations will not stop Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
  Some of my colleagues have complained about how unfair it is to Judge 
Kavanaugh that these women have dared to come forward, and they have 
shown little sympathy for the attacks these women are facing or 
interest in the corroboration they are willing to offer. They have 
ignored the real questions about Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and 
truthfulness and his blatant disrespect for women.
  Make no mistake. In 2018, survivors are still not being taken 
seriously, and that is despite the extraordinary prevalence of sexual 
assault, which is hard to even quantify, given that an estimated two 
out of three sexual assaults go unreported.
  It is simply unacceptable that survivors are still not being listened 
to and taken seriously.
  To President Trump and Republican leadership, I say: We will not 
stand for these attempts to silence women and shove them back into the 
dark. These allegations of sexual assault are extremely serious, and 
they are credible. The way that these survivors have been attacked is 
disgusting.
  Yet even before we were aware of these allegations, it was clear that 
Judge Kavanaugh should not serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. I watched 
Judge Kavanaugh's responses to my colleagues during his initial 
nomination hearings. I examined his judicial writings and past public 
statements. I reviewed the limited number of documents that Republicans 
shared about Judge Kavanaugh's time working in the White House. What 
the totality of this record makes abundantly clear is that on issue 
after issue, Judge Kavanaugh has promoted a judicial philosophy that 
diminishes the rights of individuals, particularly women and people of 
color, puts corporations before people, and promotes a partisan 
rightwing ideology at odds with the will of the American people.
  But in addition to a record and an outlook that is disqualifying, 
there is Judge Kavanaugh's lack of credibility. Even in his initial 
hearings, Judge Kavanaugh raised serious questions about his 
credibility amid a lack of truthfulness on a range of issues stretching 
back to his time with the Starr investigation and his work in the Bush 
administration--questions about his credibility that have only been 
reinforced by his response to the multiple allegations of sexual 
assault he is now facing, as evidenced by those who knew him coming 
forward to dispute his statements.
  The eyes of the country and the world are upon us, and I fear what 
they will see in the coming days. It is not too late for the Senate to 
pause this sham process and make clear that this body listens to 
survivors and takes their experiences and their pain seriously. 
However, if the Senate continues on its present course, it will be an 
abject failure by this body that will not soon be forgotten.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________